PDA

View Full Version : Reason for Hijab: Womens hair emits dangerous sex rays



roshan
15 Aug 04,, 12:55
Some excerpts from the following article: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/18656.htm

A circular from the Ministry of Islamic Guidance and Culture in Tehran asks TV editors to make sure that women's games are not televised live: "Images of women engaged in contests [sic] must be carefully vetted," says the letter, leaked in Tehran. "Editors must take care to prevent viewers from being confronted [sic] with uncovered parts of the female anatomy in contests." . . .

Fear of Muslim viewers seeing bare female legs and arms on television is also shared by theologians in several Arab states. Sheik Yussuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian theologian based in Qatar, claims that female sport is exploited as a means of undermining "divine morality."

Ayatollah Emami Kashani, one of Iran's ruling mullahs, goes further. In a recent sermon, he claimed that allowing women to compete in the Olympics was a "sign of voyeurism" on the part of the male organizers.

"The question how much of a woman's body could be seen in public is one of the two or three most important issues that have dominated theological debate in Islam for decades," says Mohsen Sahabi, a Muslim historian. "More time and energy is devoted to this issue than to economic development or scientific research. "

The Khomeinist version of the hijab, invented in the 1970s and now popular in many countries, including the United States, covers a woman's entire body but allows her face and hands to be exposed. Hijab theoreticians agree on one claim: a woman's hair emanates dangerous rays that could drive men wild with sexual lust and thus undermine social peace.

But the problem of women athletes goes deeper. Some theologians claim that any form of sporting activity by women produces "sinful consequences." In 2000, for example, the Khomeinist authorities in Tehran announced a ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles. The rationale? Riding bicycles or motorcycles would activate a woman's thighs and legs, thus arousing "uncontrollable lustful drives" in her. And men watching women on their bikes in the streets could be "led towards dangerous urges."

The problems don't end there. According to some theologians, a woman should not be allowed to venture out of her home without a "raqib" or male guardian. But that guardian must be either her husband or her father, brother, grandfather, uncle or son.

Even if a woman is accompanied by such a "raqib" at a sporting event, the problem isn't solved. One woman's "raqib" will be a stranger to the other women playing, say, a game of volleyball. Thus any sport involving more than one woman produces complex chaperonage problems.

Last year, the Tehran Municipality presented a plan to provide sports facilities for women. . . . A model stadium was set up with 12-foot-high walls to make sure that no one could see the women from the outside. The stadium was to operate with an all-female staff, including coaches and administrators. The plan was scrapped last February, when critics claimed that the proposed stadium was located close enough to an airport that women in the stadium might be seen by men flying above them in jetliners and helicopters. . . .

The municipality still hopes to find another plot of land to build an all-female facility. "Women account for a majority of the population in this city," says Esfandiar Mashaie, Tehran deputy mayor for social affairs. "We cannot ask them to pay municipal taxes but be denied the same facilities as men simply because we fear that some men may go wild by seeing women doing sport."

At times, fear of women doing sports causes major headaches for Islamic governments. The Islamic Republic in Iran, for example, has agreed to host the Muslim Women's International badminton games next year. Although all the participating athletes have agreed to wear uniforms that cover them from head to toe, the organizers are still worried that men might sneak in to have a look at what is going on. To solve the problem, the authorities have decided to hold the games in a remote mountain resort. The only road leading to the resort will be sealed by an all-female unit of the paramilitary Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The games will be organized and supervised by exclusively female staff and recorded by an all-female TV crew.

"The place would look like a lepers' colony," says Soheila Karimi, a women-rights campaigner. "These people live on another planet and in a different epoch."

************************************************** ***********
************************************************** ***********

LOL, I wonder why the hell the stupid scientists are busy studying all sorts of things using x rays when they could investigate the Islamic "sex rays from female hair" Theory instead.

ChrisF202
15 Aug 04,, 15:18
What on Earth? :confused: Do they really think about it that way?

Confed999
15 Aug 04,, 16:23
That's messed up...

Asim Aquil
15 Aug 04,, 17:33
Iranian women I know are extremely modern. They aren't so rigidly Islam. Heck I've known several who're extremely promiscous. However most women that wear the hijab choose to wear it, its not like men (like the Taliban) have forced something on them. Now these moronic rules just exist in Saudi, its all to do with freewill. I was surprised to read about several anti-Hijab rulings in western countries even the United States, where school children were forced by school to remove the hijab. As you can make out from that article, there are people that'd consider removing the hijab as nudity. No one should be forced, neither to wear it, nor to remove it. IMO.

The whole men will get excited thing is a Moronic thing that mullah's promote. I see some pretty good looking Arab chicks on the streets here, in their Hijaab. They still look good. So go figure.

I have a Yemeni friend who was tellin me, I'd make my wife wear a complete Burkha (kinda like the Taliban thing fully covered, head to toe). I'm like why? He says guys will look at her and get horny (go figure). Anyway I asked him will you do the same? And he was like huh? I told him, Girls would be looking at you too, won't that make your wife jealous like you're being jealous by men looking at your wife? haha no answer to that!

roshan
15 Aug 04,, 17:50
Saudi Arabia isnt the only country to have anti female laws, as we can read in the article above, in Iran women cant go to the gym and they cant ride bikes.

Most Iranians in the west are quite westernized though. This is a given because most of them leave Iran because they want the western freedom that they dont get in Iran. Most of the Iranians in foreign countries despise the mullah government in Iran.

Nisaar
18 Aug 04,, 15:53
Well, as a muslim I feel that it is time for the Iranian government to go. This is all nonsense. I'm not saying that women should walk around naked, but they shouldn't be overclothed either.

Iran needs a real democracy.In the same breath, they don't need Americans claiming to give them a democracy so that they can steal their oil.

Asim Aquil
18 Aug 04,, 16:36
How clothed a woman is should be left upto that particular woman, perhaps not nudity (aww). Wouldn't want my 4 yr old nephew whose bout to goto school this fall, learn his first words in English "Boooobiiiieees!". Every society will have its own version of "indecent exposure" bearing in mind the kind of clothing "their women" normally have on.

Making it illegal for a chick to show hair, like making it a crime, is just wrong. Should be left to personal choice.

Jay
18 Aug 04,, 16:40
Asim,
I dont remember any rulings/rules in USA that forced students not to wear hijab.

There is this one occassion in Florida (I think), a muslim women went to get her driving license and was resfused license coz she didnt want to remove her hijab/Burqa for the drivers license picture. How stupid is that ? :tongue: Just showing your eyes for a drivers license. :biggrin:

Asim Aquil
18 Aug 04,, 16:57
Asim,
I dont remember any rulings/rules in USA that forced students not to wear hijab.

There is this one occassion in Florida (I think), a muslim women went to get her driving license and was resfused license coz she didnt want to remove her hijab/Burqa for the drivers license picture. How stupid is that ? :tongue: Just showing your eyes for a drivers license. :biggrin:

Read something in the news bout some American family that sued a school for asking a girl to comply with school regulations and remove the hijab ( the head scarf, not the face covering). I think I read something later on the school lost.

and about the driver's licence thing! lol, man that sure is dumb, I was once photographing for this event (an award ceremony), then this woman comes to me and shes like "Asim, will you take pictures of these remarkable women, we want to show case what kind of talent we have". They were all freakin covered! and I'm like thinking, dude I can snap myself and just put a caption down there, that its them!

Don't know whether to laugh or cry whenever I see such photographs.

Trooth
20 Aug 04,, 01:05
I hear there was outrage at a woman's breat once appearing on TV.

Oh no wait, that wasn't in the middle east ... :)

Confed999
20 Aug 04,, 01:20
I hear there was outrage at a woman's breat once appearing on TV.
On public TV durring family programing is the problem, one can turn on cable and see breasts whenever one wishes.

Lunatock
20 Aug 04,, 01:38
I hear there was outrage at a woman's breat once appearing on TV.

Oh no wait, that wasn't in the middle east ... :)

It made a lot of neglected Tivo's suddenly seem important again. :)

Horrido
20 Aug 04,, 02:26
I think hijabs and burkhas are counter-productive, makes me want to put more effort into getting it off to see what's underneath. Not to mention, all the fun things you could get away with underneath in public if they're loose enough. ;) :tongue:

Besides, what do all these mullahs have against those marvelous sexual urges God bestowed upon us? Do they believe they know better than God, and wish to second guess his design? lol I say we neuter them.

Nisaar
20 Aug 04,, 08:46
Asim,
I dont remember any rulings/rules in USA that forced students not to wear hijab.

There is this one occassion in Florida (I think), a muslim women went to get her driving license and was resfused license coz she didnt want to remove her hijab/Burqa for the drivers license picture. How stupid is that ? :tongue: Just showing your eyes for a drivers license. :biggrin:


I'll wholeheartedly agree with you there. I mean my mother can take my sisters drivers test by wearing hijab and if she doesn't take it off, only God will no whats under there. In order to be identified, you'll have to take off the Hijab.

Nisaar
20 Aug 04,, 08:51
I think hijabs and burkhas are counter-productive, makes me want to put more effort into getting it off to see what's underneath. Not to mention, all the fun things you could get away with underneath in public if they're loose enough. ;) :tongue:

Besides, what do all these mullahs have against those marvelous sexual urges God bestowed upon us? Do they believe they know better than God, and wish to second guess his design? lol I say we neuter them.


From what I've been told, the female is suppossed to cover her hair with a scarf. This Hijab thing is a bit extreme, the ones they wear in Afghanistaan look bullet proof! :eek:
That should actually be classified as a mask!
The covering of the face ,though, is part of the Arab culture as women are perceived as having a delicate skin and the scorching desert heat will burn them,
and they used to cover their faces when exposed to the elements.
Women in Islam are allowed to beautify themselves, i'll find the reference in the Quraan and get back to you.

The problem with us is that we have some highly uneducated people ruling us.I hope this changes soon.


BTW please don't neuter me, I'm a muslim of the more hauny variety :biggrin:

Nisaar
20 Aug 04,, 09:04
Well, as a muslim I feel that it is time for the Iranian government to go. This is all nonsense. I'm not saying that women should walk around naked, but they shouldn't be overclothed either.

Iran needs a real democracy.In the same breath, they don't need Americans claiming to give them a democracy so that they can steal their oil.


I know its really kind of silly for me to reply to my own thread but I would like to take that last statement back. Thanks to America muslims will soon have a right to vote and a Democracy. I'd never want to take Saddams part and I felt like I was doing that.

Forgive me guys

Ray
20 Aug 04,, 15:05
First of all it is rather difficult to believe that there can be an edict that justify that women's hair emit sex rays. That is a bit of a way out rationale.

It is my curiosity, when a Moslem man goes to marry, does he get a chance to see the lady's face before marriage? Or is that also not possible?

Horrido
20 Aug 04,, 15:28
Nisaar, the gelding was restrictive-mullah specific. lol I once helped a vet school ladyfriend neuter two goats (I held the goats, she used her personal pocket knife) in under 20 seconds, no anesthetic. I never quite slept soundly with her after that.

In terms of head-covering, you'll find many Christian sects, most notably Greek Orthodox, often do the same.

Nisaar
20 Aug 04,, 16:01
Nisaar, the gelding was restrictive-mullah specific. lol I once helped a vet school ladyfriend neuter two goats (I held the goats, she used her personal pocket knife) in under 20 seconds, no anesthetic. I never quite slept soundly with her after that.

In terms of head-covering, you'll find many Christian sects, most notably Greek Orthodox, often do the same.


Make mental Note :

Absolutely do not be in room with Horrido for close to 20 seconds..... :biggrin:


Reason : I should be given the chance to use it before I lose it!!! :biggrin:

Aryan
20 Aug 04,, 16:18
In my opinion, the whole hijab/burka thing is an Arabian cultural element, certainly not a religious aspect. The emergence of hijabs among Pakistanis is a relatively new phenomenon, traditionally the flowing 'dupatta' over the shoulders or loosely over the head is the Pakistani tradition.

Bhutto, the former PM of Pakistan is a good example of it:

http://www.ljongma.dds.nl/icons/weken/2003/bhutto.jpg
http://www.sedmoykanal.org/data/images2003/09/21/bhutto-300.jpg
What was she thinking of posing in that manner :tongue:

Lunatock
20 Aug 04,, 17:40
http://www.sedmoykanal.org/data/images2003/09/21/bhutto-300.jpg
What was she thinking of posing in that manner :p

Your in her 'hood now! :tongue:

Asim Aquil
20 Aug 04,, 21:05
In my opinion, the whole hijab/burka thing is an Arabian cultural element, certainly not a religious aspect. The emergence of hijabs among Pakistanis is a relatively new phenomenon, traditionally the flowing 'dupatta' over the shoulders or loosely over the head is the Pakistani tradition.

Bhutto, the former PM of Pakistan is a good example of it:

http://www.ljongma.dds.nl/icons/weken/2003/bhutto.jpg
http://www.sedmoykanal.org/data/images2003/09/21/bhutto-300.jpg
What was she thinking of posing in that manner :tongue:

2 yrs back met her in Pizza Hut, she was dining with some Indian family. No Hijab! Almost didn't recognize her :D. When we did, this friend of mine, went up to talk to her. Haha, he was so nervous, like he was going to ask her number or something. Though that would've been something fun to do. haha, will remember the next time I catch her around.

Horrido
20 Aug 04,, 21:24
Nisaar, drop me a line if you're up for a chat.

Ray
20 Aug 04,, 21:37
Asim,

Benazir talking to an INdian family?

Woow. The blasted subversive. She also talked with Clinton and Bush. Worse. Osama says so!

What's the idea of using 'Indian'? I speak to Pakistanis, but thts no great shakes. They are also human even if they are on the wrong side of the border.

Come on, get real.

I would even greet you, vision and aryan as my long lost firends,even if you dont.

I will still have my differences, but meeting you all, including interacting on this forum, I think much of the misunderstandings, if any, must have been watered down.

From this unfortunate post of yours (and I thought you are beyond pettiness) if the teaching in Pakistan is to have hate all the way, it is sad. it is not so with us. We want friendship and happiness.

As I told you, I have even now the best of friendship with a Pakistan Army Officer who was my opposite number in the 1971 War and whom I met during the Delineation Talks and on the Line of Control. I don't hate him. He did his duty and I did mine. But he was a human and so was I. He understood that and so did I.

It is you civilians who have no idea of the ravages of war who are 'patriotic' and jingoists so long as someone else does the dirty work for you so that you can live and spew venom all around.

Trooth
21 Aug 04,, 01:31
On public TV durring family programing is the problem, one can turn on cable and see breasts whenever one wishes.

The point i was making was that it is a cultural thing the impact that bare bits have on people. Over here in the UK we thought that the uproar in the US was bizarre. But that the US has a more vitorian attitude to such things.

If the US looks prudish compared to the UK, the the UK in turn looks completely prudish compared to France, Germany or Italy etc where nudity is accepted in billboard advertising.

So who is "right" - the prudish US, which is more "restrictive" than the UK, or the more liberal Italians who quite happy have women wearing next to nothing to advertise office furniture?

The olympics have had to adjust their ways by even the liberal standards of the west. There was a fair amount of controversy a few years ago over the amount of flesh being shown by some gymnasts and the somewhat hilarious public debate over the shape of Chinese girls bottoms. There has been the adjustment of ages of competition which, amongst other reasons, was at least to bring the ages of some of the gymnasts up to legal ages for letching after!

On the other end of the scale beach volleyball actually contains sporting regulations regarding the maximum amount of clothing that the players may wear - clearly an attempt to gain viewers through titilation.

A few years ago i had some friends from the US (SoCal) over in the UK. When confronted with a normal "girls night out" in a restaurant over here they were unable to comprehend how women would go around looking like that because, and i quote, "aren't they worried they might get raped?".

Clearly there are cultural differences between even the more "enlightened" societies, even those who essentially share a common culture.

Now, forcing people to cover up is the contentious bit. However a lot of religions insist on certain standards of dress and quite often it is around head coverings, for both men and women. It isn't just islam, after all.

I feel that burkha's are completely over the top (pardon the pun), however if i lived in a burkha society i would probably find myself fantisising about what she looked like / was wearing underneath and i am sure this would be just as provovative as her wearing more western dress.

Confed999
21 Aug 04,, 01:47
So who is "right"
If it works for you, it's perfect. Many people believe the stunt was set up, and she knew that wasn't allowed to do it at that type of venue. (I have no idea if it was or wasn't set up.) Even the liberal Italians don't have naked people selling gum on ads in schools, I'm sure there are rules against it.

BTW, your buddies from SoCal ever go to the beach? Unless your "girl's night out" people were topless, or bottomless, I doubt they were less dressed. ;)

Trooth
21 Aug 04,, 02:23
If it works for you, it's perfect. Many people believe the stunt was set up, and she knew that wasn't allowed to do it at that type of venue. (I have no idea if it was or wasn't set up.) Even the liberal Italians don't have naked people selling gum on ads in schools, I'm sure there are rules against it.

I don't doubt it for a moment, but doing it predicted the outrage, and it is that bit were the difference is.



BTW, your buddies from SoCal ever go to the beach? Unless your "girl's night out" people were topless, or bottomless, I doubt they were less dressed. ;)
I agree, but then you know how it works, sometimes more is less (hence my comment with the burkha :redface:

lulldapull
21 Aug 04,, 07:22
man these god-damn backward moslems! its a disgrace for them islamic countries to be involved with sniffin each others underwears in the year 2004! :biggrin: :biggrin: INMO honestly I believe that A-raanbs are the most backward and deprived ppl alive today! just god-damn clueless!

Ray
21 Aug 04,, 10:14
Lull,

Easy does it.

lulldapull
21 Aug 04,, 18:45
Lull,

Easy does it.


See this is this same story in that pathetic God forsaken area of the world. The religious zealots influence the government to the point that it is this conservative in all mouzlum countries. This haramzada musharraf tuttoo is basically a mulla. :) He may be against them now, but we all know that he is a mulla too. Just like that Khatami across the border in iran, despite his claims that he is a liberal gaandoo and blah blah!

Unless all these pre-colonial pieces of shit die out and aren't replaced with a younger and more westernised stock, we will continue to see the subcontinent fester over extremely backward and quite frankly ridiculous issues.

These two countries should resolve this kashmir issue, and just God-damn move on man, before its too late.

INMO death to all religious conservatives. It is they who swindle the illiterate and impressionable ppl in them third world countries sieze power and ruin all of our lives. ! :mad:

Ray
21 Aug 04,, 19:55
Lull,

The vanity of women will never cease.

The hijab is just to ensure that their vanity is given an ego massage. If you cover yourself like a mummy, you remain fair.

Aryan's post will show that being fair is the quotient for manhhood, emancipation etc. He is a man. So, why get all het up about women covering themselves up as if they are in a sack! At least, they will be fair, which I reckon (as per Aryan) as great qualification for societal acceptance.

Why only talk about Moslem women. In India, the British women wore veils and massive hats with a parasol to protect them from the oppressive sun.

If Moslem women in Europe want to be head to toe covered what is wrong? They won't catch a cold. Saves on prescription drug bills.

Therefore, this head to toe cloth is unique and very scientific.

Horrido
21 Aug 04,, 20:29
As long as it is by their own choice, and not by the dictates of others, there should be no problem.

Confed999
21 Aug 04,, 21:19
As long as it is by their own choice, and not by the dictates of others, there should be no problem.
Nice...

Ray
21 Aug 04,, 21:51
Nice...

When a Messenger of God decrees that is from the horse's mouth, who has the guts to disobey?

Human beings are weak and they fear the unknown.

Therefore, many weak ones feel it is better to comply than otherwise.

How come there are so many Gods and so many messengers?

To my mind, it is the uncertainty of the truth that make mostl clutch the straw like a drowning man.

One must have faith in himself and that is all.

Horrido
21 Aug 04,, 22:24
If it's that serious of a concern, why don't they just develop dangerous hair sex ray sunscreen?

Trooth
21 Aug 04,, 22:51
If it's that serious of a concern, why don't they just develop dangerous hair sex ray sunscreen?

Because in 8 out of 10 tests men are attracted to women.

Confed999
21 Aug 04,, 23:00
When a Messenger of God decrees that is from the horse's mouth, who has the guts to disobey?

Human beings are weak and they fear the unknown.

Therefore, many weak ones feel it is better to comply than otherwise.
That's why we talk about it. To make the unknown, known, and to let others, that may come across these ravings, know it's ok to question anything that doesn't seem right. Others before have had the stomach to question the Messengers of God, I wonder how much of the compliance is fear of the "religious police".

One must have faith in himself and that is all.
Sounds too lonely for me.

Asim Aquil
22 Aug 04,, 10:03
Asim,

Benazir talking to an INdian family?

Woow. The blasted subversive. She also talked with Clinton and Bush. Worse. Osama says so!

What's the idea of using 'Indian'? I speak to Pakistanis, but thts no great shakes. They are also human even if they are on the wrong side of the border.

Come on, get real.

I would even greet you, vision and aryan as my long lost firends,even if you dont.

I will still have my differences, but meeting you all, including interacting on this forum, I think much of the misunderstandings, if any, must have been watered down.

From this unfortunate post of yours (and I thought you are beyond pettiness) if the teaching in Pakistan is to have hate all the way, it is sad. it is not so with us. We want friendship and happiness.

As I told you, I have even now the best of friendship with a Pakistan Army Officer who was my opposite number in the 1971 War and whom I met during the Delineation Talks and on the Line of Control. I don't hate him. He did his duty and I did mine. But he was a human and so was I. He understood that and so did I.

It is you civilians who have no idea of the ravages of war who are 'patriotic' and jingoists so long as someone else does the dirty work for you so that you can live and spew venom all around.

No offence but...... hain? I was dining with Indians too!! I just gave the readers a little detail.

Ray
22 Aug 04,, 10:26
Asim

You subversive :) ;)

Ray
23 Aug 04,, 20:53
Come on chaps. This thread is getting dead.

My name is Ray but the sex part odf ' sex Rays" is not so wild that hair sniffing gets me sexually wild.

Yet,

Help me to resurrect and many others who will not admit that thier libido fails their desire and imagination! ;) :)

Horrido
23 Aug 04,, 23:05
Well, in my continuing saga to make fun of their silliness, we could design opaque glasses for the mullahs to wear, so they won't be offended by the sight of women's hair as they're continually walking into things...

Jay
23 Aug 04,, 23:10
or lets tweak their brain cells and make sure that they cant identify any more "hairy" things :cool:

Horrido
24 Aug 04,, 02:58
Kinda like a large internal egg scrambler, but could you make it thin enough to penetrate, yet strong enough to get through that thick skull?

Ray
24 Aug 04,, 08:36
:)

Ray
24 Aug 04,, 08:40
Mullahs are cross dressers with a difference - they dont cover their noggins.

Nisaar
24 Aug 04,, 11:35
Nisaar, drop me a line if you're up for a chat.


Ok, cool, I will

Purdah
26 Aug 04,, 12:08
" Ayatollah Emami Kashani, one of Iran's ruling mullahs, goes further. In a recent sermon, he claimed that allowing women to compete in the Olympics was a "sign of voyeurism" on the part of the male organizers. "

Okay I knew most of this information already, but this seems a bit unnecessary. I think this is so because women have a right. If the man doesn't like this then DON'T WATCH. Just because we have ovaries and uteruses it doesn't mean we don't have have the right to play sports and run around in stupid uniforms.

It's interesting that you say, "Man must have faith in himself and that is all."

I guess I could say I agree with this to some extent but I think there is some sort of light at the end of the tunnel.

Jay
26 Aug 04,, 15:17
well, these mullahs will not change, they'll keep on pointing to some hadiths when ever women ask for their rights...Muslims should disown these mullahs and should stop subversing Koran and other scriptures...best of all women should "fight" for their rights rather than bleaking in a tame voice.

First, they should stop this "talaq" practice, its getting sick and ugly.

Purdah
26 Aug 04,, 16:14
Since Islam exerts absolute power over every aspect of Muslim society, from diet to relations between the sexes, why has it failed in fourteen centuries of its existence, to eradicate injustices against half of its adherents?



Quote from The Quran (Koran)
Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient.

Jay
26 Aug 04,, 19:20
why has it failed in fourteen centuries of its existence, to eradicate injustices against half of its adherents?
Good question, to be asked to a liberal maulvi!



Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient.
I dont know whether Koran really says that or its an wrong interpretation. But if its for real, Islam will have tough times ahead.

Trooth
26 Aug 04,, 21:40
As much as i hate to agree with militant Islam. I can only submit one thing that, in some ways proves their point.

Beach volleyball.

Any sport with a maximum clothing regulation is, frankly, a form of voyuerism.

Horrido
26 Aug 04,, 22:34
Quote from The Quran (Koran)
Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient.


And thus, the Koran politely ommits just who is superior, but kindly hands men at least one advantage as a system of checks and balances. As I've always suspected, chomping the forbidden fruit of knowledge in Eden first has supplied the Daughters of Eve an unfair, half-step advantage over the Sons of Adam. ;) :tongue:


And a kind and hearty welcome to the board, Purdah. ;)

Purdah
27 Aug 04,, 02:06
Thankyou! :biggrin:

And that quote was straight from the Quran Jay but obviously translated. It might not be the intended meaning.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/islamquotes.htm

That's true, any sport with a maximum set of clothing is a bit iffy in terms of voyuerism. Saying this I'm sure it would be harder to play volleyball on a hot day wearing a tracksuit.

Confed999
27 Aug 04,, 02:33
Good women are obedient.
Obedient women aren't any fun at all.

Ray
27 Aug 04,, 04:45
But disobedient ones could spread terror and hence terrorists! ;)

Confed999
27 Aug 04,, 05:02
But disobedient ones could spread terror and hence terrorists! ;)
Well, women do scare the s**t out of me, but it's a good scared. ;)

Purdah
27 Aug 04,, 07:59
There are(or were)a number of women terrorists and suicide bombers.

As for women being obedient, good men are obedient too. Too much seperation nowadays, we're all human beings. Let's just say, Good people are obedient. The question is, WHAT is obedient!!!

Confed999
27 Aug 04,, 23:11
Good people are obedient
You think? I like independant people more myself. When I look for a woman, I seek a partner.

Trooth
29 Aug 04,, 12:15
You think? I like independant people more myself. When I look for a woman, I seek a partner.

I think the context is religion, in which case there aren't many that aspouse independant thought (from the book of Trooth c1v1)

Confed999
29 Aug 04,, 14:59
I think the context is religion, in which case there aren't many that aspouse independant thought (from the book of Trooth c1v1)
Thankfully I'm a Deist, kinda, so the above does not apply. :)

Ray
30 Aug 04,, 09:48
It is time to check the genetic strain that makes Islamic women emit 'dangerous' sex-rays! It might help mankind.

Trooth
30 Aug 04,, 22:26
It is time to check the genetic strain that makes Islamic women emit 'dangerous' sex-rays! It might help mankind.

I thought that was the major ingredient of Viagra.

But if we all take a step back here. There are varying degrees of sensibility. It wasn't that long ago in the west that female tennis players wore near burkhas, that bathing machines were in use at seaside resorts. That the sight of an ankle was shocking etc.

In the west Ancient greek art was "restricted viewing" because of the greek's fondness for erect penises and in the case of art depicting plays somewhat "supersized" phalluses.

Further there are those loony parts of the world that want horses and dogs etc to wear shorts and so on.

In fact nudity, whilst lets be honest, about as natural a thing as you can get, is a touchy subject the world over. Thong bikinis (often worn by those who shouldn't, sadly) have caused controversy in many places.

And then you have context, conformity and social standards. Bikinis are fine on the beach, but not in the office (well most of them). Why is that?

Now, forcing women to cover up is, well, bad. But the logic behind it has been with us for centuries. And i defy any heterosexual man here to say that they are not affected by the dress of women.

Equally how amny religions have a dress code? Lots and not just for women.

Jay
31 Aug 04,, 15:50
Equally how amny religions have a dress code? Lots and not just for women.
Most of them has a dress code, but this is the best reason for all....stupiity at its prime!

Ray
31 Aug 04,, 18:13
It is true that, why only women, men should be suitably dressed and not be in the raw in office or in a public place.

However, I wonder if looking and moving like sack with slit holes for navigation through the streets that being the only aperature for the eyes is the 'suitable' dress. I am sure some can carry it off with panache.

True, that all peoples of the world had social taboos and as you said, ankles were not shown and yes, bath-house (I saw a BBC programme just yesterday or was it National Geographic). However, the dress code evolved with the change of time and societal and workaday exigency.

In England, if one did not wear a tie and a suit or did not have their socks on, it was as offensive and taken as being naked.

The British sneered at the boorish way of the Americans in years not too far ago, but now they are more American than Americans in their dress and social customs. In fact, Blair was more casually dressed than Bush at one of their Press Briefings! So, they have changed. Imagine, the stiff upper lip British snooty joes, stooping to reality!

They used to dress for dinner. Now they don't. Possibly the cost of having so many clothes for the day, different for each meal or activity made them see reality. Or it was adequate to just have a fork as silverware instead of the elaborate soupspoon, tablespoon, dessert spoon, fish knives, normal knives, butter knives, fish forks, normal forks and so on. And have new plates for each course. Quarter plates, soup plates, dinner plates, breakfast plates, etc etc. Table napkins, tea serviette, sandwitch servietters and so on. And today? I saw a press report that said that now the trend is not to change their underwears woinf to the pressure on time! I wonder how far the last part is true, though.

Imagine wearing a burkha and working in a school chemistryl lab. There is always a chance of the burkha catching fire because of the bunsen burner or some chemical falling on the burkha, either soiling it or being eaten through by chemical reactions! Or working with machines and it getting tangled, resulting in an accident. maybe fatal. Even working in the office in a burkha could spill liquids like ink etc and create a mess or it getting caught in a dot matrix printer and so on.

Therefore, there is a case for a change or so it appears.

Trooth
31 Aug 04,, 21:36
I refuse to have a meal unless in my tails and there are at least 5 courses. Old chap, what what? I leave my help to worry about the tableware. Always remember, start at the outside, work in. :)

Regarding our burkha wearing friends, reemmber that they are not allowed to work (ehnce avoding some of the perils your mention) or drive and so on.

I don't wish my comments to be misinterpreted. I would like to see the burkha done away with and women free to purse careers and their dreams as much as the next man. Hey if the burhka's are coming off i want ot be the next man :)

My posts were to highlight, however, that in even enlightened societies it takes something to change attitudes. In the UK women gained a lot of independence thanks to the efforts of the Kaiser and the Fuhrer. This enabled women to gain experience of roles that previously were the exclusive domain of men (working in factories, flying planes, working the land, working with machinery. It made it acceptable for them to wear trousers!

What are the imperitives that will be so demonstrable in showing the Islamic societies that things should change?

And even in the west, are we really that enlightened yet? In tennis there was a kerfuffle when Navratilova wanted to wear shorts at Wimbledon. The Janet Jackson farce highlighted some more hyperbole and so on.

Not only are different cultures, wel different, but also there has to be a reason for things to change. As we don't have a utopia to emasure other countries by, we probably shouldn't judge them too harshly.

Ray
01 Sep 04,, 00:07
Trooth,

I am not agianst being 'suitably dressed'.

I read a news report about a Bangldeshi women who was footloose with some football guys etc. It turnd out to be a **** who before coming to the UK live in BD. I dont't know the actuals.

I am sure that al BD women are not horny or wantingto make a quick buck with the taboloids!

Ray
01 Sep 04,, 00:14
Trooth,

In case you don't want to go through the rigamarole of a five course meal with all those changing of plates etc, don't enter an Indian Army Mess.

Go to some other Army Mess somewhere in the subcontinental neighbourhood where you can even eat with your feet!

Asim Aquil
01 Sep 04,, 02:26
Trooth,

I am not agianst being 'suitably dressed'.

I read a news report about a Bangldeshi women who was footloose with some football guys etc. It turnd out to be a **** who before coming to the UK live in BD. I dont't know the actuals.

I am sure that al BD women are not horny or wantingto make a quick buck with the taboloids!

Objection! Relevance!?

Lol.... oh ya, not a court room.... so:

wtf!? Relevance!?

Btw, that quote, Pardah. Its loosely translated. Hmmm let me try and give it my take on how they are to be translated. Men are to take care of the women, for they both have different roles. I know its mis-used by many men, but thats more of a societal issue. Our societies are highly male dominated, always were even before Islam. Heck even non-muslim people of the same societies have this male dominance bug.

Btw, the Burkha is not part of the Islamic dress code. Hijab and Burkha not the same thing. Hijab is a dress code, Burkha is a dress. Islam has a dress code for men too.

Confed999
01 Sep 04,, 05:42
Relevance!?
It's a thread about sex rays...

Asim Aquil
01 Sep 04,, 19:47
It's a thread about sex rays...

ya but, Pakistani woman caught as BD woman. "I'm sure BD women aren't like that... " etc. etc. Relevance of Stereotypes? Or maybe even prejudices?

Btw, as I mentioned earlier, and this comment has got nothing to do with Hijab, that sex rays are probably a reference to pheromones. Women's hair emmit a lot of Pheromones. Why do you think we always like the way their hair smells? Even though its just shampoo?

Confed999
02 Sep 04,, 02:52
ya but, Pakistani woman caught as BD woman. "I'm sure BD women aren't like that... " etc. etc. Relevance of Stereotypes? Or maybe even prejudices?
The same could be said for your objection to the statement as well. Don't look for insults, wait for the ones directed right at you.

Nisaar
02 Sep 04,, 14:39
What are the imperitives that will be so demonstrable in showing the Islamic societies that things should change?




I think I have an answer:

1.) Get rid of the idiot leaders who add these rules to Islam.
2.) Get muslim women to read the Quraan. The Quraan says, cover your hair and nowhere does it say cover your face( an arab tradition to prevent sunburn ).

I even have an idea on how to make muslim women independent.
Show them the part in the Quraan where it says ," AND NOWISE IS THE MALE LIKE THE FEMALE".

Asim Aquil
02 Sep 04,, 15:03
The same could be said for your objection to the statement as well. Don't look for insults, wait for the ones directed right at you.

Hit ME!

Well if its all the same, I'd still maintain it wasn't nice... Two weeks ago, I would've called it out of character, but now I'm not so sure... I wasn't calling for Mod intervention, just letting the other person know, "its not nice"... I'm a Lahori, I doubt there're any other people on the planet that can unleash that many insults as a Lahori. Lol, Punjabi (especially the Lahori dialect) is loaded with insults! :D

Trooth
02 Sep 04,, 21:47
I think I have an answer:

1.) Get rid of the idiot leaders who add these rules to Islam.
2.) Get muslim women to read the Quraan. The Quraan says, cover your hair and nowhere does it say cover your face( an arab tradition to prevent sunburn ).

I even have an idea on how to make muslim women independent.
Show them the part in the Quraan where it says ," AND NOWISE IS THE MALE LIKE THE FEMALE".

Who is doing each of these things and what are their motives? In the UK, the fact that the men were in the battlefield meant that back home opportunities opened up for women.

Ray
02 Sep 04,, 22:26
Hit ME!

Well if its all the same, I'd still maintain it wasn't nice... Two weeks ago, I would've called it out of character, but now I'm not so sure... I wasn't calling for Mod intervention, just letting the other person know, "its not nice"... I'm a Lahori, I doubt there're any other people on the planet that can unleash that many insults as a Lahori. Lol, Punjabi (especially the Lahori dialect) is loaded with insults! :D


Seek and ye shall find.

You could be from Timbuctoo. Your repertoire maybe so colourful that it would shock the women of easy virtues. It doesn't impress, especially those who have not had the bad fortune to require to pursue such inclinations.

There was no insults meant. What was meant was that one can't stereotype a coimmunity because of the fault of a single 'footloose' woman and then attribute a whole lot of countries to her name.

Even there I disagree who has the right to monitor one's sex life if it does effect society? What right has the taboloids to go slandering left and right?

It that is wrong, then you are right.

For Christ sake, don't get ballistic without cause.

You may reply. but I choose to ignore since any sane individual will realise the actuals meant!

Ray
02 Sep 04,, 22:40
Nissar,

Maybe the Indian Moslem women share your sentiment.

A Moslem woman has energised a whole lot of other Moslem women in Hyderabad and arre organising a Mosque with a Woman cleric!

It has been condemned by the male Clerics.

Of course, they require money and to built a proper mosque, but given the poltical sensitivity of the 'vote bank', I wonder if they will suceed.

So, what I wish to state, things are changing and good for that.

mostlymad
13 Sep 04,, 06:19
I know its really kind of silly for me to reply to my own thread but I would like to take that last statement back. Thanks to America muslims will soon have a right to vote and a Democracy. I'd never want to take Saddams part and I felt like I was doing that.

Nisaar, it never occurred to me that you could be taking Saddam's part. Someone can welcome change brought about by a catalist without embracing the catalist itself. If the US government's actions help bring democracy, that's great. People should have the right to shape their own rules. But it should be, as you implied, a democracy of their own making, not one shaped by the country claiming to liberate them for this very thing.

The covering the hair bit - I know a young woman in Canada who recently was yelled at in Arabic (sorry, don't know where the man was from) and had a sheet thrown at her, then was told in English - "you will not be a slut in my house!" She works for a painting company and was contracted to do touch ups in his home in Canada. She politely refused to finish the work while he was home. The girl is very modest, no make up, wearing the contractor"s uniform, hair tied back. She was quite shocked and some people suggested she should do as he asked in his home. My feeling is that the Canadian law should override customs such as these when they apply to contactors like this girl. If the law of the country does not apply within individual homes, women and children loose the protection we have fought for for generations.

I often wonder if laws that restrict women are more meant as a way of controlling them. It must seem frightening to some cultures to see women competing in the workforce, voting, shaping laws, and yes - refusing to cook dinner!

Interesting and educational thread! :) :)

tarek
16 Sep 04,, 08:50
Peddling the veil
Razi Azmi


Two French hostages still remain in mortal danger in Iraq because of the French government ban on wearing the hijab (or any religious attire) in public schools. While few Muslims support violence to protest the French decision, a very large number of them all over the world, especially the West, are quite agitated over this issue. The hijab and burqa are important to some of them, and the ban is viewed as an act of deliberate discrimination against Muslims.

After the announcement of the French ban earlier this year, demonstrations were held across cities in Western countries. In at least one such demonstration, leaflets signed by Hizb-ut-Tahrir — containing “an open letter” to the French president and another addressed to the local French diplomatic mission — were distributed. Calling the prohibition “an act of injustice and religious persecution”, it warned that when the Muslims will have “put an end to the western hegemony over the Muslim lands [and] the Khilafah will be re-established, ... that day, the Muslims will bestow goodness upon those that displayed good, and will account those who displayed contempt”. Only time will tell who accounts whom!

Meanwhile, many educated Pakistani Muslim women, living both in the country and in the West, now wear not just the hijab but the full-length Taliban-style burqa. Some go around writing articles and making statements and speeches about its supposed liberating effect on them.

Yasmin Ataullah, a press officer for the Muslim Association of Britain, wrote in The Guardian (September 3) that “I feel more confident in my hijab, projecting myself as a progressive Muslim woman who has the courage to be true to her faith while living and working in Britain. ... I now feel an affinity with Muslims in London. ... I merely exercise my rights in a free society by choosing to wear the hijab”. To Mohtarma Yasmin, hijab “is a reflection of a woman’s modesty”.

Undoubtedly, for every Yasmin Ataullah there are many more Muslim women who feel more confident — and definitely more progressive — without the hijab or burqa. And if the hijab gives her a greater sense of affinity with some Muslims in London, it equally diminishes her affinity with the more numerous non-veiled Muslim women in UK, not to mention the non-Muslim population. It is a pity that in a country that has so much to offer in terms of social, economic, educational, political and other choices, she can find no better way of exercising her rights than by wearing the hijab. It remains, after all, a symbol of religious separatism frowned upon by liberal-minded Muslims, officially discouraged in some Muslim countries and banned in Turkish schools, universities and government offices.

For Mohtarma Yasmin, “the secularist arguments behind the hijab ban in France amount to nothing more than a denial of freedoms of expression and choice”. Muslims are the greatest votaries of freedom of expression and choice, of multiculturalism and secularism in those countries where they happen to be in a minority, as in the West and in India, but are the champions of Islamic hegemony wherever they are in a majority. Only the most diehard will deny that religious minorities get a very shoddy deal in all Muslim countries, where they are allowed to exist only at the sufferance of the Muslim majority.

Saudi Arabia, for one, does not even make a pretence of permitting religious freedom. According to a US State Department report: “Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy without legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice. Islam is the official religion, and the law requires that all citizens be Muslims. The government prohibits the public practice of non-Muslim religions. The government recognises the right of non-Muslims to worship in private; however, it does not always respect this right in practice.”

Writing on a respected Pakistani Islamic website (www.tanzeem.org), Ayeza Nadeem goes even further than Yasmin Ataullah: “As a Muslim woman I don’t want to have affairs which could lead to adultery, bastards, divorces. ... The veil gives a big ‘no’ signal to all those people who have any kind of evil in their hearts. Firstly they cannot see me, which keeps them away.”

Mohtarma Ayeza will surely concede that hundreds of millions of women around the world lead perfectly normal family lives unaided by hijab or burqa, neither committing adultery nor conceiving bastards. Among those who are able to maintain their propriety, modesty and chastity without recourse to the veil are my wife, sisters, sisters-in-law and many nieces, as also the wives and daughters of my numerous Muslim and non-Muslim friends, most of whom are a credit to the female sex in their different ways. Indeed, to suggest that the veil and modesty and morality have any direct relationship is an insult to the vast majority of women — Muslim and non-Muslim — who choose not to veil themselves, as well as to the overwhelming majority of men who are not oglers and rapists.

Not to veil oneself is not an advertisement for sex nor an invitation to rape, and the hijab or burqa does not guarantee any kind of immunity from immorality. One can even make a case that the converse is true, that the greater the attempt to put women behind the veil, the greater the propensity of males to become peeping Toms, voyeurs or worse. Since Zia’s ‘Islamisation’ took hold in Pakistan, there has been a huge increase in rapes, gang rapes, rapes sanctioned by jirgas, so-called honour killings, stripping of women in public and other acts of violence against women. Almost all of these crimes against women occur in rural areas and small towns, where none of the victims can be accused of dressing themselves ‘immodestly’.

Much is made of the higher divorce rates in the West compared to Muslim countries. This is due to the economic independence enjoyed by women in the West and the fact that no stigma attaches to a divorced woman in a western society. It should not escape notice that the divorce rate in Pakistan is on the increase as women gain education and jobs, and the resulting relative economic independence and social acceptance of divorce.

The link between the veil and Islam is tenuous at best, as contended in many articles on these pages and elsewhere. It is not exclusive to Muslims, but can be found in many non-Muslim societies, including India, the countries of the Mediterranean region and Eastern Europe. Rather than extend the independence of women, the veil always was and still remains a vestige of male domination. One understands the protectionist or religious arguments in support of the veil. But to try to ascribe a higher moral value to the veil or to equate it with modesty is a bit disingenuous and to claim that it liberates women is a flight of fantasy.

Ray
16 Sep 04,, 11:01
Tarek,

Very true.

Thank heavens that in India, they (those who wore the saree and mostly Hindus) shed long back the pulling of the saree over the head to cover their heads when an elder entered.

One of the most foolish things to do so to ensure you can't see where you are going.:)

Nisaar
16 Sep 04,, 14:21
Nissar,

Maybe the Indian Moslem women share your sentiment.

A Moslem woman has energised a whole lot of other Moslem women in Hyderabad and arre organising a Mosque with a Woman cleric!

It has been condemned by the male Clerics.

Of course, they require money and to built a proper mosque, but given the poltical sensitivity of the 'vote bank', I wonder if they will suceed.

So, what I wish to state, things are changing and good for that.

Yes!. Thanks for telling me that, you made my day.
BTW. Those male clerics can go take a hike, Muslim women are supposed to pray on Friday and have a separate mosque.Back here and in many other places we have it.

Thanks.

Nisaar
16 Sep 04,, 14:34
I often wonder if laws that restrict women are more meant as a way of controlling them. It must seem frightening to some cultures to see women competing in the workforce, voting, shaping laws, and yes - refusing to cook dinner!

Interesting and educational thread! :) :)

Dead on man! I think so too.
If you really want to insult a Muslim male that believes in oppression of the Female, all you have to do is ask them:

"Umm, Who was the prohet Muhammeds(s.a.w) First and only BOSS ?"

Answer:
HIS WIFE. Lady khadija. Yes, The prophets boss was his 1st wife and he continued to work for her even after he married her.That always gets them.

Oh, btw, there is a passage in the quraan that says That women are allowed to beautify themselves with makeup. And the restriction on beautification is on MEN and NOT women. Men can't beautify themselves and for some reason it mentions in the Quraan that at most, men can only wear silver jewelry, but women can wear any form of jewelry.Jewlry is for women.

And that guy has no right to tell that girl that.

mostlymad
16 Sep 04,, 21:13
Two French hostages still remain in mortal danger in Iraq because of the French government ban on wearing the hijab (or any religious attire) in public schools.

does this ban extend to rings, earrings, necklaces, etc? Would a child wearing a small crucifix in their earlobe be ordered to remove it? How about things like Celtic symbols that at one time were considered religious? Just curious; I could see some people making an issue over details like that.

Ray
16 Sep 04,, 21:38
Nissar,

Some of the guys around here would issue a 'fatwa' on you. ;) :)

How did Prophet Mohamed work for Khadija?

Just curious.

roshan
17 Sep 04,, 17:23
Tarek,

Very true.

Thank heavens that in India, they (those who wore the saree and mostly Hindus) shed long back the pulling of the saree over the head to cover their heads when an elder entered.

One of the most foolish things to do so to ensure you can't see where you are going.:)
Ray, theres nothing wrong with that. Males are supposed to touch the feet of the elders. What if 10 elderly people enter the room at the same time? Lots of excercise for us, the women have it easy.

Of course in this age of equality, women should also start touching the feet of the elders, since most of them dont even wear saris anymore. If they want the benefits of being treated the same as men then they should accept the penalties too!

Nisaar
21 Sep 04,, 10:15
Nissar,

Some of the guys around here would issue a 'fatwa' on you. ;) :)

How did Prophet Mohamed work for Khadija?

Just curious.


Lady Khadija was originally married to one of the richest and most influential Bazzar owners in Arabia. When her husband died, he left the ownership of the bazaar to his wife lady khadija. The prophet came looking for work and was employed in the bazaar as a salesman. Lady khadija( as the story goes) watched the honesty of the prophet whilst he sold the merchandise of the bazzar and( I'm going to say something that will anger the sexist muslims) LADY KHADIJA asked the prophet for his hand in marriage. She married him. She was the breadwinner of the family.

The prophet only became a prophet at the age of 40, and he was much younger than khadija when SHE asked HIM for his hand in marriage.

And that is how the story goes. I don't have a degree in Islam, but I have been studying its' history from the age of 7. Sexist muslims know this story as well. This is what really happened.

Please tell this to your sexist muslims friends and make sure to tell me what they say.
:)

Ray
21 Sep 04,, 14:55
Lady Khadija was originally married to one of the richest and most influential Bazzar owners in Arabia. When her husband died, he left the ownership of the bazaar to his wife lady khadija. The prophet came looking for work and was employed in the bazaar as a salesman. Lady khadija( as the story goes) watched the honesty of the prophet whilst he sold the merchandise of the bazzar and( I'm going to say something that will anger the sexist muslims) LADY KHADIJA asked the prophet for his hand in marriage. She married him. She was the breadwinner of the family.

The prophet only became a prophet at the age of 40, and he was much younger than khadija when SHE asked HIM for his hand in marriage.

And that is how the story goes. I don't have a degree in Islam, but I have been studying its' history from the age of 7. Sexist muslims know this story as well. This is what really happened.

Please tell this to your sexist muslims friends and make sure to tell me what they say.
:)

Thanks.

I knew that the Prophet was much younger than his wife and she was rich, but I didn't know that she was a bazaar owner or that she proposed.

It means even after marriage he continued to work for her.

Nisaar
22 Sep 04,, 10:24
Thanks.

I knew that the Prophet was much younger than his wife and she was rich, but I didn't know that she was a bazaar owner or that she proposed.

It means even after marriage he continued to work for her.


I felt it necessary to give some facts and figures so:

She was 40 years old when she proposed to marry the Prophet when he was 25 years old. After 15years of their marriage he became a prophet. She had been married TWICE before she married Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Her first husband was Aby Haleh Al Tamemy and her second husband was Oteaq Almakzomy. They had both died leaving Khadijah a widower. Khadijah died in 621A.D. This was the same year the Prophet ascended into heaven (Meraj). Or so we beleive.
The prohet practised monogamy with her for around 25 years. He was something like 50+ when he got married again. He remarried about 11 times in a very short space of time.


Oh!, BTW, something more interesting.

After he became a prophet, in a major war that took place, the prophet and one of his wives of that time ( I forgot her name, I'll find it for you if you really want) actually fought TOGETHER, side by side. She even sustained some injuries as the story goes.

So women in Islam even fought wars. Some of the early campaigns in Islam had women as the leaders of the armies.

Let me find the names and i'll post them for you.
All I'm saying is that the mindset of muslims these days is extremely sexist and it was'nt this bad when islam was in its early days.

Anyway, We should fight these sexist guys.
Back home where I live , they started (or tried to) this muslim radio channel, but no women were allowed to apply for vacant posts. Unfortunately for them, a muslim women applied for the posts anyways and when she was rejected, complaned to the SABC( South Africas broadcasting commision) and due to the evident sexism, they shut the station down.
Anyway, a few months later the station reapplied and was reopoened and there seems to be women in the posts now. Glad that happened.

Anyways I'm still upset because alot of the women don't even mind that they are unequal with men in our society. They should also stand up for their rights.

Samudra
22 Sep 04,, 11:17
Nisaar

WHat was the time when the Prophet was living on earth ?
Plus , is there any place in Quran where it says a man should follow his intution and judge things in the context of things as they exist rather than follow things blindly.

I have assumed that the failure of reading things in context , and not judging anything by his own self has led to this state of islam.

for example this hijaab in , arabia , could have simply been an sun screen and a head cover to prevent heat.Imagine what it is today ! huh

Nisaar
22 Sep 04,, 12:13
Nisaar

WHat was the time when the Prophet was living on earth ?

Umm, About 570 A.D was when he was born. (around 1400 years ago)




Plus , is there any place in Quran where it says a man should follow his intution and judge things in the context of things as they exist rather than follow things blindly.

Let me check,i'll get back to you, I think there should be something like that. Anyway, I don't accept something without Question myself.

Maybe with the acception of a gorgeous Girl who tells me she adores me and wants to become the mother of my children a.s.a.p. :biggrin:

I definetly wouldnt question that.

just kidding.


I have assumed that the failure of reading things in context , and not judging anything by his own self has led to this state of islam,for example this hijaab in , arabia , could have simply been an sun screen and a head cover to prevent heat.Imagine what it is today ! huh

I'm also of that assumption. Like if the prophet where born in Africa, does that mean I should wear a bush between my legs :frown: and that women should not wear tops. :) :) :)
(Hey, maybe thats not a bad idea.)
:)

Samudra
22 Sep 04,, 12:22
I'm also of that assumption. Like if the prophet where born in Africa, does that mean I should wear a bush between my legs :frown: and that women should not wear tops. :) :) :)
(Hey, maybe thats not a bad idea.)
:)

ha ha ..
now you being a muslim , sit down and think . Christians have books , hindus have books and guess what ? all have stuff like devil in nose.But why have they moved on and muslims slept over it ? why ? i am unable to find why.

Nisaar
22 Sep 04,, 13:48
ha ha ..
now you being a muslim , sit down and think . Christians have books , hindus have books and guess what ? all have stuff like devil in nose.But why have they moved on and muslims slept over it ? why ? i am unable to find why.

Well, my three assumptions is that:

1.) Most of the muslims are still stuck in the "Armish" phase of Islam. No offense to the armish.

2.) We have only recently retaken to primary and tertiary education(As you get educated you learn to question more) and Islam is amongst the youngest of the religions and most religions in their infancy (if an infancy is +-1423 yrs) tend to practice with an iron fist.The mostly tolerable people of Christianity werent so forgiving in the 1400's.


I'm not saying that we should break our rules or anything, but what I'm saying is the ridiculous things that were added to the sharia and sunnah or that leaders say are there (We beleive the Quraan has not been altered though, and we beleive that it never will be, or that the will always be a pure version for mankind) is what could be causing problems.


3.) 'MODERN IS WESTERN'.

I think a lot of people view it like this. There is no denying that the western people have contributed unbeleivable amounts of Knowledge For mankind. I think this could have lead to envy of the western peoples and ultimately to a."will our culture die out?' question. Thus the noose was tightened in an attempt to save a 'culture' and in the process retarded the development of muslims and (initially) other people in the east. I don't however think that we (the eastern people) ever approached the rate of discovery that Westerners have, hence the envy.
Modern is modern and nothing else. It doesnt imply changing your religion, it could imply changing your culture.
I don't think its only islam that sufferred from this initially as my grandmother from my fathers side (who was a hindu indian) would rather walk than sit in a 'Jukjugari'(train) as she would so often tell me. Why, "These bloody brittish brought it here, they colonized us and they change our lifestyle."
Alot of us hated the majority of the west even though a minority was responsible for colonizing us and other peoples and maybe this could have also resulted in a hatred for change.

But she wasnt really all that bad. I know hindus have a very high tolerance for Islam. Like when my Dad was sick( My dad converted much later), my Grandmother(she remained Hindu) used to take him to some 'Miracle moulana' to heal him. That was extremely tolerant of her. Perhaps Hinduism could be amongst the most tolerant religion in practice even though other religions preach it.

ISLAM SHOULD BE PEACEFUL, BUT MY Grandfather and Father werent exactly treated very well when they asked muslims if they could read the Quraan. They were told," NO!!, you have to be muslim!".This is an extremely ignorant beleif that no non-muslim can read the Quraan.(Quraan says anyone who is clean in body and mind may read it.)
How will you convert if you don't know what is in the religion. The prophet regularly displayed versus of the Quraan to non-muslims.

The leaders (Arab monarchy, Saddam Hussein etc) also fear losing control of the population once everyone is smart enough, hence they say and do stupid things to keep in power.
Saddam wasnt just attacking his people for fun. He was attacking those sects of people because they opposed him and his dictatorship.

I'm really enjoying this conversation with you. :)

Samudra
22 Sep 04,, 14:02
1.Whats armish dude ? i know practically nothing about deeper islam.all my thought and ideas come from net surfing.light that is.

2.Yea islam is fairly a new religion.Agreed that religions in their "growing" golden phases havent been good at all.For ex.todays islam,yesterdays christianity(how local pagans were killed , etc etc in mexico,s.america etc).Read indias history and you will find how they werent any good at all in their golden phases.


is it a common factor to abrahamic religions ?

madrassa education perhaps is yet another factor to backwardness of muslims...
but will muslims agree to move out of this madrassa type of education ? why not ?
are muslims holding themselves back , by staying with madrassa education rather than modern education ? it turns out to be infinite loop.

reg , "modern is western" ill type it out laterz. got to run now. :)

Nisaar
22 Sep 04,, 14:53
1.Whats armish dude ? I know practically nothing about deeper islam.all my thought and ideas come from net surfing.light that is.


Yikes! Armish is actually a sort of sect in Christianity.
I was comparing the Armish-Christians to some muslims.

They are quite nice people, but they have strict rules like they can't carry guns, and they enforce the rules of christianity in a stricter way. They are a peaceful people. They also have like a 'closed-economy' type thing going.


I meant that the Armish are a staunch form of christianity. Sort of like quite a few muslims.



2.Yea islam is fairly a new religion.Agreed that religions in their "growing" golden phases havent been good at all.For ex.todays islam,yesterdays christianity(how local pagans were killed , etc etc in mexico,s.america etc).Read indias history and you will find how they werent any good at all in their golden phases

is it a common factor to abrahamic religions ?


True. But its a case of : Blame the followers and not the religion.

I agree with you there. Since I am a follower of an abrahamic religion, it would be natural for me to defend the 3 religions, 2 of them (Havent got my hands on a jewish bible yet) have some gruesome violent tails to tell, but they most definitely promote the well being of mankind and peace.
I think its a common factor among followers of the abrahamic religions rather than the religions themselves.




madrassa education perhaps is yet another factor to backwardness of muslims...
but will muslims agree to move out of this madrassa type of education ? why not ?
are muslims holding themselves back , by staying with madrassa education rather than modern education ? it turns out to be infinite loop.

reg , "modern is western" ill type it out laterz. got to run now. :)

Well my opinion is that we can have both, but separated. To study islam you go to madrasah and to educate yourself you go to like a western school or something like that. But you have to go to a school. And you must have an idea of your religion so that you know what you are following.

In South Africa and many places we have 'muslim schools' that teach both a normal and religious education. This would be the answer for muslims, but the only problem now would be that the kids would only socialize with muslims and not get to socialize with children from other religions.You learn alot by talking to people of different beliefs.

I was sent to a normal school and after school every day I walked to our mosque where we were educated in Islam. The teacher at the time wasn't exactly a guy with a string of degrees, but he was very modern in thought and did quite a good job.

Another thing would be to get educated people who are also moulanas to teach muslims kids. But we have to modernize and advance.

All of mankind must modernize and advance.
Modern is not smoking and drinking and having sex before marriage and wearing clothes that look like underwear. But alot of backwards people view it like this.

There are only about 40 million Arabs or so out there. There are 1.3 billion or so muslims out there so its really sad that people generally think Arab when they think Islam. The Arab countries are a fair bit backwards but the same can't really be said for Malaysia for example. (Also backwards but modernizing very fast.)

The Arabs arent too bad people either, I have talked with alot of them, but they comprise a small percentage of Islam.
They are just being held back by not having democratic countries. I'm not saying that mankinds current form of democracy is all that, but it sure beats the hell out of most other types of government.

mostlymad
22 Sep 04,, 14:58
Most of the muslims are still stuck in the "Armish" phase of Islam. No offense to the armish.

Nisaar, do you mean "Amish" as in the Christian group that clings to old customs, won'r drive cars, use electricity in their homes (only their barns), etc.?

You might be enjoying your discussion with chandragupta, but I'm quire enjoying reading what you two are exploring.

Hurry up! More!!! :biggrin:

Nisaar
22 Sep 04,, 15:09
does this ban extend to rings, earrings, necklaces, etc? Would a child wearing a small crucifix in their earlobe be ordered to remove it? How about things like Celtic symbols that at one time were considered religious? Just curious; I could see some people making an issue over details like that.

If we look at this controversial glass of milk as half full rather than half empty, one can see many advantages to what the French have done.

I'm NOT saying I agree with it.

But new kids that go to school can immediately tell if,'Hes a christiaan' or 'She's a muslim' and hence only associate with people who have similair beliefs to themselves. Even I (and I don't think I'm prejeduced) would find it much easier to start a conversation with someone if I know they have the same beleifs as me. So if key factors that give away a persons religion arent taken to school, its more likely that kids would come together and form one group on the playground and associate more easily with each other. Like if I know that a person is Jewish, I may automatically think, 'hey, I am muslim, maybe I wont get along with this guy, let me find someone who is muslim'.
I don't know if I explained properly what I was trying to say but maybe the French had good intentions when they did this.

Anyway ,I don't mean to contradict myself, but I also beleive that people should have freedom of choice .

Nisaar
22 Sep 04,, 15:16
Nisaar, do you mean "Amish" as in the Christian group that clings to old customs, won'r drive cars, use electricity in their homes (only their barns), etc.?

You might be enjoying your discussion with chandragupta, but I'm quire enjoying reading what you two are exploring.

Hurry up! More!!! :biggrin:

Oh SH**!. Is it AMISH.
Yikes, my bad. No wonder she/he didnt know what I'm talking about.
Anywayz I was just saying that quite a few muslim people are like that because it was their choice or because they were forced. Its not in the religion. Imagine if all that was in Christianity. Mankind would have definitely not conquered space. Or invented Kentucky fried chicken(one of the most important discoveries of America in recent years).

mostlymad
22 Sep 04,, 15:40
I don't know if I explained properly what I was trying to say

you explained it beautifully. Thank you. I see what you mean, because while we would like everyone to not only be tolerant of differences but appreciate them as well, that is not the reality, and if we first help kids see how they are alike, then they may be more inclined to accpet the differences. (now I hope I am being clear!)

I love that Kentucky Fried Chicken bit, BTW.

Nisaar
22 Sep 04,, 15:51
you explained it beautifully. Thank you. I see what you mean, because while we would like everyone to not only be tolerant of differences but appreciate them as well, that is not the reality, and if we first help kids see how they are alike, then they may be more inclined to accpet the differences. (now I hope I am being clear!)

I love that Kentucky Fried Chicken bit, BTW.

Thanks. Anyways I grew up in a school where I initially hung around with muslim people because I was actually shy and afraid that the other kids wont accept me if I hang out with them.
I immediately (The first day of school) saw different groups of people and the moment I saw a group that fitted me and my supposed beleifs, I automatically accepted it as the way of things and only talked to muslims.

And it was quite a while before I even mentioned a few words to someone who was Christian or jewish or whatever.I was automatically thought that this is the way of things. Nice to know a government attempted to combat something like this.

Your being clear, don't worry.
:)

Ray
22 Sep 04,, 20:43
Nissar,

Thanks.

Very beuatifully explained.

Do keep up more of the explanations. I wish to learn more, if you may.

Just one clarification (and you needn't answer if you don't want to), why did he marry 11 times?

Next, given what you and Asim said about the Sharia keeping with the times, I told some Moslem friends and they disagreed. Any quotations from the relgious text to emphasise this?

Personally speaking, you are doing a great service to Islam bu explaining without pulling punches.

I am grateful.

mostlymad
22 Sep 04,, 21:35
Personally speaking, you are doing a great service to Islam bu explaining without pulling punches.

I am grateful.

this is true. You and chandragupta both, for Islam and Hindus.

Here is your award. Share it! :)

Confed999
23 Sep 04,, 02:28
Thanks for the info guys, very informative thread...

Samudra
23 Sep 04,, 05:25
this is true. You and chandragupta both, for Islam and Hindus.

Here is your award. Share it! :)

he he dude ,that was cool. where is the cash cheque they give away with that award and i dont have the slightest intention of sharing that cheque with nisaar ;)

Nisaar

Amish , i guess i have an equal to that.
My great-grand-pa , wouldnt sign documents,will not touch money and when an ant bit him , he gently removed it , instead of pushing it away and killing it.
And he never eat without sighting a eagle(garuda) of some sort daily , considerd one of assistants of lord vishnu....sounds so similar to amish.

Religious education and upholding morals, are a bit needed in every age

Hindus had their own versions of madrassas in vedic ages called "gurukulas" where most people learnt.they combined both religious,moral and then sciences like art of war,such and such.Its sad that such "gurukulas" are non-existent today.Why ?. Mostly they couldnt adapt themselves to times and rigid caste,religious things saw their end.


Are madrassas facing the same today ? They are modernising , but are they fast enough ?. As a suggestion ,how about teaching other religions in madrassas too ? *THAT* would solve the "kafir" attitude at its grass roots.And the fact that students of madrassas dont get a chance to mingle with other communities is a bad thing IMHO.

Its not a bad idea to look at how non-arab,"out of touch with arab" muslims have fared.ex: malayasia,turkey(? not sure ? ) . Does racism associate itself with islam in the arabian mullah mind ? perhaps it sees a solace in the "ummah" and that becomes its excuse.

just for info, hindus too have a equivalent of "ummah" , called "vasudheva kudumbam" /something .

i know i have asked many questions, but answers lay within those questions.

Ray
It was standard practise to marry "n" no of wifes. :biggrin:
Esp , when you are a king, or a powerfull person in society.
The Imperial Chola Emperor -> Raja Raja Chola , my hero had 15.
And child marriage was common 1500 years ago.
It hurts me , to see Indians curse mohammed for marrying a 9 year old Ayisha(?) , when they cant stop child marriages in India. :mad:

tarek
27 Sep 04,, 04:28
Can you see my voice?
Inas Younis
Clad in black, anonymous in a world that capitalises on her brilliance without acknowledging her person – is hijab a testament to faith or a manifestation of subjugation?



Although I am typically cloaked in full hijab, when it comes to writing I am always naked in both spirit and understanding.

I prefer neither to cater to the vulnerability of those who approach every Islamic initiative with a defensive posture, nor to those who come equipped with preconceived and borrowed ideas, and for whom spiritual conviction is precluded by a state of chronic ignorance and religious constipation.

I am addressing readers who have an absolute confidence in their ability to think.

Fifteen years ago, I attended a Muslim youth conference where I was persuaded to yield to the anguish of an entire ummah (nation) by submitting in full blind faith to a strain of Islam championed by the Afghani rebels (pre-Taliban), who had been invited to motivate us into religious compliance. They appealed to our sentiments by way of an original anthem, exhorting us to hear the weeping of Afghanistan’s most innocent victims – the orphans. But words and songs were not required when theirparalysed and amputated bodies served as the most powerful testament to the sacrifice they had made in the name of Islam.

A seed of guilt was planted by the suggestion that our Islamic ummah was reaping punishment because of our religious apathy. And as a condition to our collective survival, we were beckoned to atone for our shortcomings by submitting ourselves to the “cause”. The nature of that cause was masked with a generic plea to vindicate the suffering of Muslims by volunteering to amputate something less valuable to a teenager than bodily limbs – our infantile minds. We were called to commit practically, to that which we had been taught to embrace ideologically. It was hardly a sacrifice considering that at fifteen my mind was practically and ideologically constrained by only one thought: the boys on the other side of our segregated lecture hall.

But before I could surrender my moral autonomy, I had to extinguish a few reservations. And so in a public forum I asked the visiting scholar to explain the significance of polygamy. He replied that “it is a social solution for a social problem.” Then I questioned him about hijab, the Islamic head covering. He pronounced that it is a fard, a religious obligation, on all women.

So although I had come in wearing jeans and a sweatshirt, I left in full modest regalia, headscarf and all.

I knew almost nothing of religion, but it did not matter, because knowledge was a minor technicality in light of the precedence that crying orphans commanded. I knew that I must act before I think, because as even the ancient Christians proclaimed, lex orandi, lex credendi, action precedes faith.

Now I am thirty years old and a little more difficult to satisfy, and although I still believe that action precedes faith, I am convinced that it is the action of the mind, not the body, which precedes not only faith, but the physical action itself. Fifteen years have passed, and my commitment to faith has not betrayed the cries of theorphans in Afghanistan. In fact, it has only become aggravated by the cries of routinely overlooked victims of persecution – Muslim women. Women’s voices are being used, with or without their consent, to wage a resistance movement designed to use them as props in counteracting Western colonialism.

Observe the concrete example of this onslaught on women as embodied by the person whom I shall dub “the heart surgeon”. I cannot name her, or describe her, because the person who related his recent interaction with this gifted female surgeon, who had saved his life after he suffered a heart attack, has never “seen” her voice. She was clad in black from head to toe and had but two slits in her face veil to allow her a restricted view of a world that was prepared to capitalise on the brilliance of her mind, as if it were a public commodity, without acknowledging her person. A world where she is told to allow her talents to be plundered for the benefit of her intellectual inferiors, without the incentive of recognition and respect; a world which insists that her orthodoxy is a testament of her elevated status instead of what it has really become – a visual manifestation of her subjugation.

But what the world of the female surgeon has imposed through physical coercion, ours has sanctioned through the psychological coercion inherent in the decree made by the consensus of those scholars who insist that the peripheral custom of veiling is mandated in Islam. A claim which, I have come to discover, is grounded less on theological evidence than on the religious vulnerability which seeks to use the visual imagery of women as an antidote to the helplessness we are experiencing at the hands of Western dominance.

Frustrated by all these visual and intellectual contradictions in my faith, I sought out that very scholar who had satisfied my questions some fifteen years ago.

Although he did not remember me, one peek into his lowered gaze and I was satisfied with the purity of his heart.

This time however, I had no mercy and started at the very beginning, by concerning him with the question of God. He replied that there are some things you cannot understand or explain. After I felt hammered by that realisation a few more times, I elected to dispose of the esoteric questions and get down to concretes. So I asked him the modern value of enforcing the hijab. He said that it is his opinion that it is obligatory, but of course a woman can choose.

But where is the choice when her salvation and love for God is contingent on her willingness to comply with those opinions you deem compulsory to circumventing a grievous penalty? He wisely resorted to the same answers I received from the many other people whose counsel I sought and finally said, “There are some things you just have to accept, and Allah has commanded it so.” I asked him what he thinks I ought to do with my inconsolable mind. He declared, “Where your mind ends, revelation begins.”

Hence I was left without answers, but I was contented nonetheless by the reassurance that answers are not always possible and I should finally take consolation in faith – thus God, thus divine law, thus salvation.

I was prepared to accept matters as they are decreed even if they did not appeal to my intellect. But before I could take one day’s comfort in that realisation, another irksome question demanded to be asked. What of those matters that contradict human intellect? For even if I succumb to intellectual apathy and blind faith I could not ignore the visual contradiction embodied in that female surgeon. Dumb was one thing, but dumb and blind was more than I could bear to sustain. If I drive myself to accept that my commonsense, my intellect, is extraneous in matters of faith, then I must not only accept the corollary of that assertion, but also its remedy - dogma and literalism.

If I am not permitted to exercise my uniquely human capacity to integrate and conceptualise reality as I experience it then I too would be bound to the same prescriptions which compel that female surgeon to apply religious mandates across every situation no matter what her circumstances dictate. Some environments are innately devoid of any sexual context, where notions of modesty or vanity, female vs male are completely immaterial, as would be the case in an operating room. Hijab in the context of some environments, much less extreme than hospitals, does the exact opposite of its intended purpose – it injects the notion of sexuality where none exists. But before we even bother about arguments on the letter vs spirit of the law, we have to be aware of an even greater, more insidious danger to the natural progression of literal thinking and that first axiom of blind obedience which we have been called to embrace.

The intellect vs Islamic law

If the things we cannot explain and do not understand are the means by which we seek to reinforce our belief in God’s presence, if accepting religious law submissively without question, laws and fatwas which are not grounded in intellect but on vague interpretations of revelation, are the greatest reinforcement we have of the validity of any religious claim, then the measure of faith in God becomes contingent on the degree to which one is willing to forgo logic.

What happens when one is able to intellectualise the rigidity of dogma out of existence, is that then tantamount to intellectualising God out of existence? Is the God who demands adherence in defiance of logic and reason not the God of superstition? If we accept what we are told, that static laws are moral truths, and then allow others to attach our adherence to them as a testament of our commitment to God, then ask yourself if you are willing to act on it, without just applying it to others and then using repentance as a scapegoat to exempt yourself. Ask yourself if you are willing to live according to the dictates of the faith-minus-logic world of that female surgeon. Or will you continue to rely on the luxury that a free society permits you by evading the very real and more pertinent question here: do you believe that you have a right not to believe and still be a believer?

Are you prepared in the name of the God who granted you free will to renounce the attitude towards faith that relies on your ability to not justify things, to not understand, and worse to resist the temptation to know them, making renunciation of the mind a qualification of faith in God?

If you can’t bring yourself to do it, then you are not alone. Countless doctors, scientists, and professionals at the height of their academic fields become absolute numbskull idiots when it comes to matters of religion. Observe the man who needs confirmation on whether or not he should divorce the woman he loves, should it please his mother, or if he can be alone in an exam room with his female patients? Here is a man who is trained to make life and death judgement calls but cannot make the simplest decisions when it comes to his personal life or work. Or notice the woman who asks if dancing is permitted if only for her husband. But what is even more absurd than the questions are the answers they were given, which were – yes, divorce her; no you can’t be alone with your patient; and yes, you can dance for your husband as long as you do not imitate that infidel Brittany Spears. For more comical examples of the intellectual liquidation of our ummah I refer you to www.sunnipath.com, a site I was referred to by an even more mainstream organisation, the Zaytoona Institute.

What is not so comical is the sense of urgency which is driving Muslims to abdicate their commitment to a rational faith in the interest of the anti-rational dogma of legalism according to and championed by our leadership, the abstraction of which can be embodied by a scattered collection of voices who have been eulogising the merits of an Islamic state, all the while ignoring the reality and corruption which is our Islamic “state”.

But here is the secret fear of our leadership, of our mullahs, from which all their irrational decrees are designed to hold back and deflect. It is the deep down realisation that the literal materialisation of everything they have been preaching has already been actualised in one of the most loyal, literal and failed experiments in Islamic history, Saudi Arabia, the land that is the logical conclusion of our illogical approach to religion.

They will of course go into a diatribe about how that sham of a kingdom is not an Islamic ideal but rather its corruption, but they will not be able to tell you why. Not because they do not know why, but because to answer the question why, you have to be prepared to follow through with the answer and its subsequent implication – making public that which you have already painfully conceded in private, proclaiming your independence from every authority that up till now has held us all emotionally detained and united under a philosophically flimsy banner of blind compliance to Islamic laws which are intellectually indefensible.

Proclaim your independence from laws which have kept women physically or psychologically gagged and men spiritually impotent. Say your farewell to edicts which are supposed to reinforce revelation, but have in essence denied its most fundamental premise, the premise where your mind ends and revelation does indeed begin. Your mind ends at the very beginning, with the most fundamental question and answer from which every other question and answer should stem. Are humans inherently good or evil?

It is with this question that revelation kicks in with undeniable force and tells me what my intellect cannot, which is that humans are inherently good, a premise which not only makes my faith unique, but which is also one of the firmest of my religious beliefs.

Since our revelation stresses our inherent goodness, our fitra, then it stands to reason that the letter of the law is a superfluous mechanism in harnessing our nature, which revelation says is predisposed to goodness. No legalism or holy spirits are required for guidance if and when our natural proclivity is allowed to serve as our most qualified guide. But our natural inclination is not a given; it is a product of a soul that is under no compulsion, a soul which is completely free. Natural inclinations can only find representation in a world that is free of every variety of coercion and intimidation, making a free society the organic expression and incarnation of an Islamic state, and the more free the society, the more Islamic it becomes.

No amount of rationalisations or explanations can convince any thinking person that a stricter adherence to the codification of our traditions will cure our current crisis. We must stop insisting that ideological unity is measured by uniformity in practice and recognise that ideals are abstract and timeless and their implementation will have different expressions depending on time, culture, place and circumstance. We should also recognise that pity and loyalty to the feebleminded and spirited of society who seek security through unity and uniformity is a betrayal and a crime against the intellectually gifted members of our society, who will either, in an effort to alleviate their anguish, use their intellectual prowess to become the most destructive force in the trend towards fundamentalism, or leave religion for the masses, and become either disgruntled atheists or mystics.

If uniformity in practice continues to become the standard by which we derive and uphold religious law, instead of reality and intellect, then we will forever be compelled to yield to the lowest common unifying denominator where the exceptions become the rules, the hypotheticals become the standard, and the what-ifs become the what-should-be. And in order to insure uniformity in practice, scholars will be forced to spend their lives making concessions for every single legal contingency. Islamic scholarship, philosophy, and art will have to be sacrificed in order to relieve the constipation which results from questions like:

What if it rains in the morning, can I join my prayers?

What if my shorts are one eighth of an inch above my knee?

What if my wife kisses me before I had the chance to stop her, should I repeat my wudu?

These sorts of questions become completely legitimate when reason is isolated from religion.

You have only to look at the reality which is our present state to recognise that where there is impotence of the mind and spirit, there is subjugation of the body, specifically women’s bodies. If man is the metaphor for the material world, the world of progress and development, then woman is his spiritual counterpart. Man’s spirit is bound by his capacity to produce, and whenever man feels he has no power to effect change or to produce material goods, woman becomes the mirror of his castrated spirit. In an effort to alleviate his paralysis in the physical world, he will seek to bind and gag the spirit which demands he fight for it, the spirit which is woman, the spirit whose movements he seeks to control to compensate himself for the tyrannical politics of bigger men who seek to control him.

To resuscitate men’s minds, I would like to propose that we initiate a movement to liberate the male spirit by psychologically and physically liberating women from the impositions of religious mandates that are no longer relevant or sanctioned either in letter or spirit. We should do this one scarf at a time, by re-evaluating the directive imposed on women to cover their hair and demanding that our scholars publicly Abu Dawud. The English translation of Sunan Abu Dawud is in three volumes. This hadith is in volume 3, book XXVII, chapter 1535, and hadith number 4092, titled: ‘How Much Beauty Can a Woman Display?’

Abu Dawud reports that this is a mursal tradition (ie the narrator who transmitted it from Aisha is missing), making this hadith a weak one. Few veiling advocates ever point out that this is a weak hadith and therefore should not be used to obtain Islamic injunctions.

The other hadith, which is sahih (considered authentic), states:


My Lord agreed with me (‘Umar) in three things... (2) And as regards the veiling of women, I said “O Allah’s Apostle! I wish you ordered your wives to cover themselves from the men because good and bad ones talk to them.” So the verse of the veiling of the women was revealed (Bukhari I.viii.395).

But again this was in reference to the Prophet’s (pbuh) wives who were the target of insults and accusations by the “hypocrites.”

The majority of those who have attempted to interpret the Quran to mandate the hijab argue that the vernacular “beauty” includes hair, and its exposure is therefore forbidden. But the term “ordinary” means ordinary to the prevailing social customs. How is hair not “ordinary”?

The word ‘hijab’ itself is derived from hajaba, that is, to hide or conceal. Hijab/ hajaba is mentioned eight times in the Quran. But hijab is never used in the context of a woman’s head covering. Even the word khimar really signifies any covering, such as a blanket, dress, or shawl.

What is clear, even after an analysis of various translations and even if one uses the word veil in translation, is an order that the woman’s bosom be covered, not that the woman’s head be covered. This is not to say that covering the hair does not carry noble connotations. My objective is not to destroy what I believe would be a beautiful custom if it were not marred by the decree that it is obligatory, depriving a woman from the sense of joy that she would derive from choosing it as a genuine expression of her interior state of purity and transcendent beauty.

My objective is to liberate every woman, myself included, who has only adopted the Islamic dress because she was misled into believing that it is an obligation, and even more importantly to liberate all the women who do not wear it from the unearned guilt they harbour, for what they have beentold is spiritual weakness on their part.

I got the impression from the many people I have spoken with that they would secretly agree with me but would rather not rock the boat over what they have, without our permission, deemed a minor issue. I pray that they will evolve the courage to forgo political correctness and stop hiding behind the pretence that it’s the woman who is making the choice. Fear, of eternal damnation no less, nullifies the impression that it is a choice.

But my greatest motivation in seeking guidance on this issue was to speak on behalf of those who do not have the luxury to make an independent decision regarding their religious expression. For while I can take off my hijab, I know that the ramifications I, a mere housewife, will suffer in the hands of a few backbiters and name-callers will be negligible in comparison to the jail time and humiliation a female surgeon in Saudi Arabia would have to endure to assert her right to unveil.

When my friend was lying at the operating table, vulnerable and exposed, he was asked by the thoughtless man who was there to assist in the surgery to furnish some proof that he can pay for the superior quality heart tube which he demanded. The female surgeon terminated his coarseness by giving him her assurance that she would pay for it if my friend could not, proving that she is not only his superior in intellect but also in compassion.

My friend not knowing in what manner he would thank this angel of mercy, in what way he can make her feel singled out, without being rebuked for transgressing any social bounds, elected to do it by means of a poetic note of thanks. She took it from him as if it were a charge slip, only to rush back to plead with him to sign the note. In that act, she expressed both her nature and personality, for while she remains nameless and faceless and claims no credit for her efforts, she insists that he be given credit for his.

And so in gratitude to the female surgeon who has healed and touched many hearts both literally and figuratively, I, in a last literal and symbolic act of faith, would like to take my hat off, or rather scarf off, to you my sister in Islam. For tomorrow I will go out unveiled for the first time, in the hope that the world will see you and me with new eyes and, more importantly, with enlightened hearts. And I am hoping they will join me in public opposition to the veiling of your elegant mind and compassionate voice. A voice which, if it were allowed to sing freely, would triumph over the voices of those who either in their silent resignation or blatant endorsement have contributed to the horrors that will make September 11 both a day of awakening and tragedy for Muslims everywhere.

Ray
27 Sep 04,, 08:40
Tarek,

A very thought provoking article.

It gives impetus to one to attempt to analyse his own religion too to check anomalises that do not appeal to logic.

And carry out self analysis.

Thanks.

Where did you get this article Can you see my voice? by Inas Younis from?

Jay
27 Sep 04,, 15:46
May all the gods give her power to lift muslim women from this injustice. But I dont know if any body (mullah, maulvi) is listening to her pleas!

tarek
27 Sep 04,, 16:54
Ray

the "In Focus" section of this week's "The Friday Times" - www.thefridaytimes.com

Jay

Muslim women and for that matter, men, can only be freed by themselves, look at what the author says about Islam with reason:

"if accepting religious law submissively without question, laws and fatwas which are not grounded in intellect but on vague interpretations of revelation, are the greatest reinforcement we have of the validity of any religious claim, then the measure of faith in God becomes contingent on the degree to which one is willing to forgo logic.

What happens when one is able to intellectualise the rigidity of dogma out of existence, is that then tantamount to intellectualising God out of existence? Is the God who demands adherence in defiance of logic and reason not the God of superstition? If we accept what we are told, that static laws are moral truths, and then allow others to attach our adherence to them as a testament of our commitment to God, then ask yourself if you are willing to act on it, without just applying it to others and then using repentance as a scapegoat to exempt yourself."

Jay, if you ever get the chance, read Allahmah Mohammad Iqbal (Lahori) "Reconstruction of Religious Thought" --

Ray
27 Sep 04,, 17:50
Tarek,

Wonderful.

Keep them going.

I am sure that I, if not someone else, will surely benefit.

Thanks, again.

Nisaar
28 Sep 04,, 14:46
Nissar,

Thanks.

Very beuatifully explained.

Do keep up more of the explanations. I wish to learn more, if you may.

Just one clarification (and you needn't answer if you don't want to), why did he marry 11 times?

Next, given what you and Asim said about the Sharia keeping with the times, I told some Moslem friends and they disagreed. Any quotations from the relgious text to emphasise this?

Personally speaking, you are doing a great service to Islam bu explaining without pulling punches.

I am grateful.



Sorry for taking a while on this one, I don't have internet access on weekends and I wanted to get some references added instead of just pulling things out of my head, so that you can counter those guys with facts.....



Second question first:

The best thing to do is to show them contradictions between the Quraan and Shariah.
The sharia is accepted as a 'STUDENT INSPIRED' text that scholars CREATED themselves in the first two centuries of islam in order to try and promote the rules and regulations talked about in the QURAAN and SUNNAH. No one (should) claims that the Sharia is 'Divine'. Muslims accept it as something that Scholars put together in an attempt (and a very bad one at that) to explain the basic rules of Islam.

So then it would be fair to assume that if the sharia contains contradictory laws with the Quraan the scholars of early islam in their attempt to explain islam failed and the sharia is therefore not islamic right ?


There are many sharia laws in the sharia that you find NOWHERE in the Quraan. Thus we can assume that these were added by the scholars.

There are many famous ones like :

Where the sharia asks that both men and women be circumcised. Circumcision of women is an Egyptian and Arab practise added into the shaaria and you wont find any passage in the Quraan that asks for this. However (in keeping with abrahamic religions) Islam does ask for the circumcision of men, as Islam accepts John the Baptist as a prophet.(Yahya in the Quraan.)
This could of probably been an attempt by an Arab to preserve his culture that was being overun by Islam in Arabia.(My opinion. My Arab rituals are in the Shaaria that contradict the Quraan.)


This is one huge contradiction between the Quraan and the Shaaria.


Secondly,

Lets look at the punishment for humans if they have to have an affair:


The shaarias punishment for Females if they commit adultery is a “stoning to death” !!!.

And the Quraan says : (on page 183/184 of the A.Yusuf Ali Translation of the Quraan)

“If any of your women are guilty of Lewdness,
Take the Evidence of Four reliabe witnesses/sources from amongst you against them.
And IF THEY TESTIFY , confine them to houses until death do claim them, or God ordain for them ANOTHER WAY.”
[Holy Quraan = 4:22]

The ANOTHER WAY, is later given on verse 24 ( profit revealed it a while later) as a 100 lashes. The option is given then to women to choose their punishment if they confess and/or are proven guilty.

If they don't testify and you don't have enough evidence, the practise was for them to then swear an oath by god to punish them in the afterlife if they had committed a sin. It is another belief in Islam that what you get punished for on Earth, you don't get punished for in the hereafter. And the punishment in the hereafter is much worse. If we were punished on the Earth for Everything we did, then there would be no need for the day of judgement. So the day of judgement is for people who did something wrong and did not get punished for it on the Earth.
Thus you CANNOT punish a lady on a suspicion. You have to have proof, or leave it for judgement by god on the 'day of judgement' .

It also says a little later, (0.5 a page)

“God accepts the repentence of those who do evil in ignorance, and repent soon afterwards, to them will god turn in mercy for god is oft forgiving most merciful.”

So what then of the stoning to Death. The shaaria is also in disagreement with this verse. What if they commited this sin in ignorance?

So, I think that reading these versus of the Quraan is more than enough to justify the defects of the sharia.
It is believed by muslims that the Quraan is the 'LAST TESTAMENT' from God and it is the final word of God and that there will always be a pure version of it available to mankind, i.e: it will never become corrupt.
There is no belief though that the sharia won't be corrupted. I'll say it again, the Sharia and its construction occured 200 years after the prophets death and in most cases contains ARAB cultural practises and, believe it or not some JEWISH cultural practises. Like the stoning to death is actually a Jewish practice.(Whitch was abolished by Christ.)

There are other defects in it, but I don't think it necessary to show all of them. Show this to those muslim friends of yours.
THE LAST WORD IN MUSLIM LAW IS THE QURAAN. They should be following the Quraan and not anything else. If the Sharia attempted to explain the Quraan and it made a mistake, That mistake should therefore be CORRECTED in order to keep the religion true. So yes, the sharia should be ALTERED.


They may counter you by showing you this verse of the Quraan:

Chapter 45:
17 ...then we gave you Sharia in religion, follow it, and do not follow the lust of those who do not know...

Don't you find it strange that all but one word of this verse is translated to English.
This verse of the Quraan is 'optimistically' translated into English. The word Sharia here can be translated into English as the word 'Laws' , hence :

..then we gave you LAWS in religion, follow it, and do not follow the lust of those who do not know...

It would really be wishful thinking on the muslims part if he now assumes that these laws being talked about in the Quraan will be laws that muslims would only get TWO HUNDRED YEARS ater the prophets death.

So what would these laws be ?
Simple, these laws would be the BLOODY laws that the Quraan talks about. The Quraans laws. So are we to forget about what the Quraan says and follow the Shaaria?


Now for the first Question:

Firstly, if I didn't answer , it would mean that I were hiding something and that I was offended.
I will try to not hide anything, and you can ask me anything, I wont be offended.

My assumption:
Now, it is obvious that if the prophet was after physical pleasure he would not have to wait until he was more than fifty years old to start marrying more wives. He lived in a society in which it was quite acceptable to have many wives firstly, and he started to remarry after khadijas death.


Firstly, a brief background of the times that the prophet lived in :

This was an age that looked upon plural marriages with favor and in a society that in pre-Biblical and post-Biblical days considered polygamy an essential feature of social existence.

David for example had six wives and numerous concubines (2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3)
Solomon was said to have had as many as 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines (2 Chronicles 11:21).

It was therefore natural in the prophets time to have more than one wife, as women were considered (unless given free reign by their husbands) a piece of property that you could by or sell if they were a slave, or something that served men if they were free.

Secondly, there were many tribes in Arabia, and if a family of one tribe married into a family of another tribe, it was considered a peace agreement between the tribes and hostilities between those tribes ended as the tribes were considered as family to each other. Men of the tribes didn't allways allow this.
Refusal of accepting a lady from a tribe after she was given to you as a gift was like the equivalent of declaring war and saying that that tribe is not "Worthy" of associating with your tribe.
It is easy to see now why Aisha was not refused.

Thirdly, If you buy a slave women, the rule among the pagan Arabs was that the lady can only be freed if you marry her or set her free. The prophet declared that no slaves can be created in Islam.
However this caused a new problem. Who is going to take care of all the slave women who are now free? How will they fend for themselves. Most of them would have resorted to prostitution, as it wasn't so easy for a women to fend for herself in savage Arabia.
So the prophet then declared that for all the women slaves, they must be freed. But how you free them is by marrying them.(There is a marriage and consummation of marriage part.) That way the new muslim men of Arabia would not just declare their slaves free and throw them out into the street, but would have to marry them and free them and look after them.

Thus the final rule in Islam.
Try to Buy and Set free all men when they are capable of sound judgement. Until then take care of them.
Try to by and set fre all women slaves, marry them to set them free. (It is not so easy for a women to fend for herself in this savage society.)

Marriage here not being a sign of sexual lust but a sign of showing that you consider them as in the same stature as you. Divorce is allowed in islam. The women can divorce you also, not only the man.(This is another long story. Don't want to make this post a thousand pages.I'll write some on it if you want.)

And thus the prophet killed many birds with one stone.

Forthly, It was considered a respectful gesture or a sign of goodwill if you gave someone a slave girl as a gift. The prophet received these 'gifts' from people who wanted them to come to their lands to teach them this new doctrine.

Fifthly, Any widows who can't support themselves, one should ask for their hand in marriage to take care of them. The prophet used to initially take care of alot of women and many rumours started that he was having affairs with them. Thus the ruling. If you take a women in to take care of them, marry them to quench all the rumours.

A brief overview of the wives of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)


1. Khadijah: She was 40 years old when she proposed to marry the Prophet when he was 25 years old. After 15years of their marriage he became a prophet. She had been married twice before she married Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Her first husband was Aby Haleh Al Tamemy and her second husband was Oteaq Almakzomy. They had both died leaving Khadijah a widower. Khadijah died in 621A.D. This was the same year the Prophet ascended into heaven (Meraj).Considered a high class women. Thus she had more freedoms than other women in Arabia.

2. Sodeah Bint Zamaah Al Amreah: Her first husband was Al Sakran Ibn Omro Ibn Abed Shamz (Took me like an hour to type that out. now you Know why I took so long to respond). He died within a few days after his return from Ethiopia. She was 65 years old, poor, and had no one to care for her. This was why Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) married her (My assumption).

3. Aishah: A woman named Kholeah Bint Hakeem suggested that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) marry Aishah, the daughter of Abu Bakr, to form a close relationship with Aby Bakr's family. She was already engaged to Jober Ibn Al Moteam Ibn Oday. At this time Jober was not yet a Muslim. The people of Makkah did not object to Aishah becoming married because although she was young, she was mature enough to understand the responsibility of marriage. Prophet Muhammad (bpuh) was engaged to Aishah for 2 years before he married her( 2 parts of marriage in islam, one rule is that you can only marry them after they have menstruated for the first tim e). Aby Bakr was the first leader after Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) death.

4. Hafsah: She was the daughter of Omar, the second Calipha.

5. Zaynab Bint Kozameh: Her husband died in the battle of Uhud, leaving her poor and with several children. She was old when Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) married her. She died 3 months after she married the Prophet 625 A.D.

6. Hend Bint Omeah Ibn Almogereahk (Omsalameh): Her husband, Abud Allah Abud Al Assad Ibn Al Mogherah, died leaving Hend poor and with many children. Hend was at least 65 years old at the time. Aby Bakr and several others asked her to marry them, but because she loved her husband very much, she refused the marriage's offers. But finally she accepted Prophet mohammad's offer to marry her and take care of her children.

7. Zaynab Bent Jahish: She was the daughter of Prophet Muhammad's aunt, Omameh Bint Abud Almutaleb. The Prophet arranged for Zaynab to marry Zayed Ibn Hareathah Al Kalby. This marriage did not last. She got divorced each .She married the prophet.


8. Juayreah Bint Al Hareath: Her first husband's name was Masafeah Ibn Safuan. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) wanted Juayreah's tribe (Beni Al Mostalag)to convert to Islam. Juayreah became a prisoner after the Muslims won the Battle of Al Mostalaq. Juayreah's father came to the Prophet and offered a payment for her return. The Prophet asked her father to give her a choice. When she was given a choice she said she accepted Islam and Prophet Muhammad as the last God's Messenger. The Prophet then married her. Her tribe of Beni Almostalag decided to live with the muslims ( A demonstration that they view their tribes as equal) and eventually accepted islam.

9. Safia Bint Hoyah Ibn Ahtab: She was from the tribe of Beni Nadir, who were from the children of Levi (Israel). She was married twice before, then she married Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Her first husband Salam Ibn Moshkem, and her second husband was Kenanah Ibn Al Rabeeah. Many women wanted to marry a so called High cass person as this would also raise their stature in the area. Thus prophet got many proposals.

10. Ramelah Bint Aby Sofian (Om Habebah): Her first husband was Aubed Allah Jahish. He was the son of the aunt of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Aubed Allah died in Ethiopia. The king of Ethiopia arranged the marriage of Ramelah to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

11. Maria Al-Qubtia: She was a slave girl sent to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a hand maid servant from the king of Egypt. Maria had a son from the Prophet. His name was Ibrahim.

12. Maymonah Bent Al Hareath: She was 26years old when she married Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Her first husband was Abu Rahma Ibn Abed Alzey. When the Prophet opened Makkah in 630 AD , she came to the Prophet, accepted Islam and proposed to marry him. Her actions encouraged Many Makkahans to accept Islam and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).



We believe that the prophet was told what to say to the people by Jiraeel (Gabriel). The prophet made it generally clear when he was talking of his own accord, or talking something that was divinely revealed. Or so we believe.
The Order in which the Quraan was revealed is not the same order in which it was put together.
One of the last rulings in Islam is this :

Men may get married and divorced only 4 times. The prophet said that there will come times where women will outnumber men by a ratio of four to one ( I can't wait :) ) thus if your current wives allow it , you may marry again as not all women will get married. But no man may ever have more than 4 wives, that is a mans disadvantage.

The womens disadvantage is that she can only have one husband at a time. Unfair, well yes, but let us consider this:
Women may get married again and again an unlimited amount of times, but they must wait a minumum of 3 months before they get married again.

I think this rule now puts women and men on an equla footing. Men have a limit on number but may practise polygamy, women have no limit on number but can only marry one husband at a time.

Unfortunately,Homosexual marriages arent allowed in Islam.

The Quraan recommends monogamy though :

A verse from page 179 (A. YUSUF ALI TRANSLATION)

"Marry women of your choice
two or three or four,
But if you fear that you are unable to deal justly with them,
THEN MARRY ONLY ONE, even if it a captive whom your right hands possess. "
[4:3]

So the recommendation is towards monogamy. Later on in the verse it also says that man is never able to deal justly with women( too lazy to find it, i'll find the location if you want)


I hope this answers your question. If I left something out ( or something is vague) be sure to ask me for my OPINION. I say my opinion because for obvious reasons, I wasn't there at the time of the prophet to justify anything for myself, but this is my take on the facts of this story . Sorry for taking so long.

As a muslim you are suppossed to follow the Quraan and Sunnah.

Remind your muslim Friends of the PROPHETS LAST SERMON : ( I'm using an extract here but I can post the entire thing for you if you want)

He says".... In my right hand I hold the scripts of the Quraan, and in my left hand my conduct/behaviour ( Sunnah) , follow these two things and you will never go astray..."


The Quraan was put into order after the prophets death by a man (forgot his name , I'll get it if you want) who followed orders that the prophet gave him.


The prophets "Conduct" was something that people also attempted to make a book of. Sunnah now becam classed as something the prophet did said spoke about or approved of. But these people left out Sunnahs Like:

The wife can be the breadwinner of the family (khadija)
Women can fight wars with you ( Aisha)
And putting and emphasis on brushing teeth with a miswaak, rather thatn just brushing your bloody teeth.
etc,etc.




Oh ! BTW

First person to become muslim : Khadija ( A WOMEN)
First matyr in Islam : Sumayaah (R.A) (A WOMEN)
Aisha (R.A) fought together with the prophet in wars .


THERES ALSO A VERSE THAT SAYS WOMEN ARE SMARTER THEN MEN, JUST BARE WITH ME, WHEN I FIND THE LOCATION I'LL POST IT. So you will know that I am not pulling this out of my head
:eek:

Nisaar
28 Sep 04,, 15:55
he he dude ,that was cool. where is the cash cheque they give away with that award and i dont have the slightest intention of sharing that cheque with nisaar ;)


Gonna have to be more careful around you .
If I knew I was gonna get payed for this, I'd be doing this along time ago.




Are madrassas facing the same today ? They are modernising , but are they fast enough ?. As a suggestion ,how about teaching other religions in madrassas too ? *THAT* would solve the "kafir" attitude at its grass roots.And the fact that students of madrassas dont get a chance to mingle with other communities is a bad thing IMHO.

I myself was taught the religion by the moulana of our mousque, but apparently in madrassahs at the university stage you can take a subject called Theology of religion. Were apparently you learn about most religions. I don't know if its biased or not because I havent been to one of those classes. It wouldn't be too far of a stretch to assume though, but I can't be a judge of something I hav'nt experienced. I believe that there are both biased and non biased schools of Islam. My schooling on Islam was extremely non-biased.

Not all the madrassahs are bad though. The Quraan also recognizes alot of religions and mentions them. For most of them it gives a name that was the best fit, or best way to say the name of the religion in Arabic so we are not sure, but there is alot in the Quraan dedicated to confirmation of other faiths. The estimate is that God sent down something like 6000 prophets to the different sects of humanity.(our belief)


Like for example , we believe in the doctrine recieved by the zoroastrians. They are called "Magians" in the Quraan I think.
Did you Know that zoroastrians also pray five times a day like the muslims.
Their prophet Zarathustra is beleived to have communicated with god on some level after meditating in a cave just like how Mohammed started.

This is gonna start a religious war where all ignorant muslims are gonna kill me, but we also believe in Gautama buddha. Accept we believe that he is a prophet of God.

We were taught things like this in our learning of Islam.


Its not a bad idea to look at how non-arab,"out of touch with arab" muslims have fared.ex: malayasia,turkey(? not sure ? ) . Does racism associate itself with islam in the arabian mullah mind ? perhaps it sees a solace in the "ummah" and that becomes its excuse.


An indian muslim Friend of mine who went for hajj says that a few Arab muslims did not want to associate with him because of his indian complexion and he says that one even called him a "hindustani" (someone from hindustaan [ Indias older name])

I don't Believe All Arabs are bad though. We had one Arab Guy ( Moulana Yassir) who taught us fo a year and that was my favourite teacher of all time. He taught us about the Zoroastrians( not much) and their similarities with us.




It hurts me , to see Indians curse mohammed for marrying a 9 year old Ayisha(?) , when they cant stop child marriages in India. :mad:


There are two parts to the muslim marriage ( how its supposed to be)

1.) Showing the community who you are getting married to by marrying her in public.
2.) Consumation of the marriage( i.e: having sex) The prophet consumated the marriage with Aisha Two years after he married her. There were a few marriages he never consumated.

In Islam (and the other abrahamic religions I think) and in the East you are considered ready for marriage when you become ready to have sex. It was a commonplace many years back.

Nisaar
28 Sep 04,, 16:50
THERES ALSO A VERSE THAT SAYS WOMEN ARE SMARTER THEN MEN, JUST BARE WITH ME, WHEN I FIND THE LOCATION I'LL POST IT. So you will know that I am not pulling this out of my head.

According to the Quraan . The males have an advantage and the females have an advantage.

The male advantage:

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because god has given the one more strength than the other.... " (page190, A.Yusuf Ali translation)

Holy Quran [ Sura 4 : 34]


And NOW, (drums rolling) the female advantage:

"When she was delivered She said,' O my Lord! Behold, I am delivered of a female child'.
And God knew best what she brought forth- and NOT WISE IS THE MALE LIKE THE FEMALE....."

Holy Quraan[ Sura 3 :36] (page 132 A.YUSUF ALI EDITION)


A yusuf Ali translates it as a NO WISE, in an attempt to probably hide something?
Well, I personally believe That A. Yusuf Ali wasn't a sexist man at all, but think about the odds Yusuf had to face when he translated the Quraan( in 1934). People wanted to KILL HIM.
So he had to translate and not offend the sexist muslim ummah at the same time.

Look at a Shaabir and a Pickthall tranaslation and they dont even translate that PART OF THE QURAAN AND LEAVE IT OUT.
Thats why I feel that the best translation is the A.Yusuf Ali translation.


Any way, the Quraan says that the Men are physically stronger and that women are wiser.
Now, Show that to your sexist friends Ray. This is more than enough ammo you will ever need.

The sharia says many bad things, But it is the Quran that muslims should follow. The sharia is a failed( they are definitely goin ta kill me) attempt at analysing the Quraan.


Anyone who believes in any faith with his head screwed on right will work for the betterment of mankind.

I'm really enjoying this with all of you guys :)

Oh! BTW, TAREK

It says in haadith that the prophet said, " Oh! people, aquire Knowledge from your cradle til your grave..."
So I don't think that the taabligh( which actually means to propagate) view on Islam to accept without question and not to be curious is a correct view of islam.

Got to go chat latrer

tarek
28 Sep 04,, 16:51
So, there is no such a thing as "uninterpreted" history and that as long as we are conscious of and honest about pre-suppositions, our "lens", thru which we "filter" our knowledge

Nisaar
29 Sep 04,, 12:49
(My opinion. My Arab ritals are in the Shaaria that contradict the Quraan.)



Oops!, just a typo. I'm not Arab. What I meant to say was," Arab rituals are in the Shaaria that contradict the Quraan."

I added the my part by mistake.Forgive me for any spelling errors.

Ray
29 Sep 04,, 19:07
Nissar,

I am sorry if I give the impression as a Moslem basher.

That is not the case.

What I wish to understand is the contradictory views expressed. This leads to apprehensions that it is radical and unless you are a Moslem you are up a gum tree and in grave danger.

I am sure it is not so.

Therefore, my learning from you all the calmer side of Ialam, I can try to request my Moslem friends to at least at the side you guys propogate and to calm down. Live and Let Live, so to say.

Jay
29 Sep 04,, 19:30
Oops!, just a typo. I'm not Arab. What I meant to say was," Arab rituals are in the Shaaria that contradict the Quraan."
I added the my part by mistake.Forgive me for any spelling errors.

Nisaar,
But Mohammed himself was an Arab. Dont you think Koran was based upon his life style and thots?? Since he was an Arab, so as most of his early followers, dont you think Koran had Arab influence like The Sharia, you talked about??

tarek
29 Sep 04,, 21:19
Jay

100% on the money -- Quran cannot but express the character and content, and the understanding of it's past and present (when it was revealed) -- in other words, it is a Text in CONTEXT -- many Muslims will suggest, rather they will confuse, we are not saying that Quran is not imeless to the adherent, but let us be cognizant that the adherent and his understanding, is not, cannot be, timeless.

Quran has a definete context -- for anything to be understood and be relevant it must be rooted in the cultural context it seeks to base it's appeal from.

For instance if Quran did not have a cultural context, how the heck wouldit be understood by the culture of 6th century Arabia and if it was not to be in Arabic, how would it be understood and be relevent. - langage reflects and creates social reality

The counter of this argument is to ask how is it then relevent now -- certainly, we can see the damage done by idiots who tell us that it can be read literally, however; we do also now that quran is understood by a majority of those who can read it, as a thematic whole, that is to say it is understood conceptually.

Nisar
"Oh! BTW, TAREK

It says in haadith that the prophet said, " Oh! people, aquire Knowledge from your cradle til your grave..."
So I don't think that the taabligh( which actually means to propagate) view on Islam to accept without question and not to be curious is a correct view of islam."

Don't tell me, tell our "brothers" in the caves. :)

Nisaar
30 Sep 04,, 11:39
Nissar,

I am sorry if I give the impression as a Moslem basher.



No. I don't see you that way dude. :)
Sorry if I implied that.
I just thought that you were having a conversation with a sexist muslim, so I felt the need to help you combat him.

From the posts of yours that I have read, I've got the impression that you are a person that is quite calm and relaxed and prepared to listen.

What I thought was that you were arguing with a sexist male who uses Islam to justify his bias. In that case, I'm with ya man :)

Nisaar
30 Sep 04,, 11:48
Nisaar,
But Mohammed himself was an Arab. Dont you think Koran was based upon his life style and thots??

The belief is that he was divinely inspired to tell his followers to write a book that was relevent to all times and nations of mankind. Just a belief.

A further belief was that he was illiterate, so people who were literate, like lady khaadija had to write down the Quraanic passages for him.

He was a young, handsome dumb male who was snatched up by a wealthy old women ( who was well educated [literate]) .
We believe that after the age of 40, the Angel Jibraeel(Gabriel) told him what to do and he just followed.

But it is just a belief. I don't know how to proove that to you, or if it is provable at all.




Since he was an Arab, so as most of his early followers, dont you think Koran had Arab influence like The Sharia, you talked about??


Yes and No. The Shaaria is influenced by Arab traditions. Alot of people think that the Shaaria was an attempt by the Arabs to preserve their violent culture which was now being replaced by Islam.

The Sharia is a separate book. The prophet decreed that no one may alter the Quraan. And the punishment for doing so is death,hence their best bet at saving their culture was to probably create the Shaaria.

Some rules are like the ones in the Quraan, but most are different.

But yes, the shaaria is mostly Arab culture.

The only thing you wont find in the Quraan is how to pray, that is in the sunnah, but everything else is in the Quraan. Arabs following the Shaaria are following Arab culture and not Islam. Even though they think not.

if you look at the Quraan and Arab culture( pre Quraanic), you will see many differences. Some Modern day Arabs and muslims seem to have moved back to a 'post Quraanic Arab culture'.

Samudra
30 Sep 04,, 12:06
Gonna have to be more careful around you .
If I knew I was gonna get payed for this, I'd be doing this along time ago.


:)


I believe that there are both biased and non biased schools of Islam. My schooling on Islam was extremely non-biased.

And the biased schools are what cause the problem.I expect other schools to reform these biased bas^ard$.


not all the madrassahs are bad though. The Quraan also recognizes alot of religions and mentions them. For most of them it gives a name that was the best fit, or best way to say the name of the religion in Arabic so we are not sure, but there is alot in the Quraan dedicated to confirmation of other faiths. The estimate is that God sent down something like 6000 prophets to the different sects of humanity.(our belief)

Like for example , we believe in the doctrine recieved by the zoroastrians. They are called "Magians" in the Quraan I think.
Did you Know that zoroastrians also pray five times a day like the muslims.
Their prophet Zarathustra is beleived to have communicated with god on some level after meditating in a cave just like how Mohammed started.

If i am correct , hindus too offer poojas in temples like 5 times a day(there are some poojas they do five times a day). And here too we have communicating with god by meditation.Afterall when krsna said , I am the only god and there are millions of ways....he should have known it better than us :)


This is gonna start a religious war where all ignorant muslims are gonna kill me, but we also believe in Gautama buddha. Accept we believe that he is a prophet of God.

No problems, there are two sects of buddhism.One which accepts Buddha as god (hinayana) and other which lives by Buddhas examples and codes of life(mahayana).Hindus worship him as god too....but no temples and kind of things like others.


We were taught things like this in our learning of Islam.

I only pray all ignorants are taught this.For this dude , i would want you to be on the offensive.So when the next time a bomb goes off in the name of islam , i dont expect you to sit down and cry , "That is not islam" , but rather go hyper-active and do what you can in showing people what a true religion(what ever it is) is.

I mean just sitting down and crying all day long "This is not islam, islam is peace" ,. i would want people to work for the improvement of the religion.Such reforms have happened in all religions , its time for islam.Its time for them to be PROACTIVE.



An indian muslim Friend of mine who went for hajj says that a few Arab muslims did not want to associate with him because of his indian complexion and he says that one even called him a "hindustani" (someone from hindustaan [ Indias older name])

Racists are racists everywhere.I just pointed out arab racism to be one of the reasons behind militant islam.



In Islam (and the other abrahamic religions I think) and in the East you are considered ready for marriage when you become ready to have sex. It was a commonplace many years back.

Sure dude , i dont wanna marry if i cant have sex with her. :biggrin: ;)

Nisaar
30 Sep 04,, 12:21
:)

And the biased schools are what cause the problem.I expect other schools to reform these biased bas^ard$.

Thats happening quite fast too I think. Every lecture on Fridays since 9/11
has been going allong the lines of:

Get Educated.
Learn the bloody religion.
Don't act on the spur of the moment.
Are we the good guys? If we are, then think before taking sides...etc




If i am correct , hindus too offer poojas in temples like 5 times a day(there are some poojas they do five times a day). And here too we have communicating with god by meditation.Afterall when krsna said , I am the only god and there are millions of ways....he should have known it better than us :)

Wow. I learnt something today that I am never gonna forget.
And to think, my Granparents were hindu and they never even told me things like that.

I have a personal belief. I believe that almost all religions are divine in origion. I really don't think that God revealed himself to only 1 or 2 nations.
I also believe that it is possible that 1 or 2 religions have been 'created' for mankind to make a profit.

Islam, hinduism ( grand parents told me, i'm not sure), and some scripts from the aztecs talk about life starting from the Oceans.
common ideas=common revealer?





I only pray all ignorants are taught this.For this dude , i would want you to be on the offensive.So when the next time a bomb goes off in the name of islam , i dont expect you to sit down and cry , "That is not islam" , but rather go hyper-active and do what you can in showing people what a true religion(what ever it is) is.


Cool. I will do that.





Racists are racists everywhere.I just pointed out arab racism to be one of the reasons behind militant islam.

True. Just wanna say, not all of them like that


Hurry up, more, more more x10

mostlymad
30 Sep 04,, 13:46
I mean just sitting down and crying all day long "This is not islam, islam is peace" ,. i would want people to work for the improvement of the religion.Such reforms have happened in all religions , its time for islam.Its time for them to be PROACTIVE.

This is good. We "infidels" :biggrin: can help as well by listening, understanding, and dispelling myths.

Great thread, BTW.

Samudra
01 Oct 04,, 05:14
Wow. I learnt something today that I am never gonna forget.
And to think, my Granparents were hindu and they never even told me things like that.

I have a personal belief. I believe that almost all religions are divine in origion. I really don't think that God revealed himself to only 1 or 2 nations.
I also believe that it is possible that 1 or 2 religions have been 'created' for mankind to make a profit.


:)

"Thiruvananthal Pooja" is conducted daily in the morning about 05 : 00 hrs in this temple, this pooja is followed by "Kaalaisanthi Pooja", "Uchhi Kaala Pooja", "Sayankaala Pooja" and "Arthajaama Pooja" . These poojas are otherwise called as "Ayindhu Kaala Pooja" (Ayindhu - FIVE, Kaala - time). Out of this poojas Sayankaala Pooja is specially mentioned. Abhisekas followed by Deeparaathanai are performed here from 17 :00 hrs daily, during this time spiritual literary works like "Vedaparaayanam", "Devaarapadhigam" are also sung by Saiva priests.


Tell this to your friends :)
If one religion is true , then all religions are true.



Islam, hinduism ( grand parents told me, i'm not sure), and some scripts from the aztecs talk about life starting from the Oceans.
common ideas=common revealer?


Even in islam you have floods and oceans ? Do reveal more to us mere mortals sir ! :)

yes dude... We have something in manusmriti like all being flooded in bharatha and manu(similar to biblical story ? ) was the one left and he started it all once again.

There are things similar to doomsday in hinduism.Like Shiva the destroyer destroys everything by pralaya(flood,fire ? ).

I have more on the flood and oceans...ill get them tomorrow..I think i forgot when i put the book in.

In case you have access to a library read John Keays "India : A history" , there he has spoken extensively about manu smriti.Western "imperialist" bias is prevlant though

Reforming Islam.

Now i try to advice you to reform islam.But why you alone ?
Dont other religions have a resposblity ?
Arent we equally disturbed by islamic fundamentalism today ?

I mean if a bomb explodes does it hurt the muslims alone , infact it hurts us "infidels" more , shouldnt we be more active than muslims in trying to bring them to the mainstream ?

It just came to my mind.

Nisaar
01 Oct 04,, 12:19
Even in islam you have floods and oceans ? Do reveal more to us mere mortals sir ! :)



There is an entire chapter in the Quraan that is dedicated to Noor (A.s), or as he is known in English : Noah. Remember the whole noah and the ark thing.

Here is one verse from the Quraan about life starting from the waters.
(I think i posted this before)

Page 828 (A.Yusuf Ali transla. I think its' 21:30, not sure)

"Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the Earth were joined together as one unit of creation before we clove them asunder,
And we raised out of the waters every living thing."

I am told that the hindu scriptures also talk about the big-bang theory. I was wondering if you could post the part where it says this.

Nisaar
01 Oct 04,, 12:21
BTW, whats' that in your new avatar?

Looks like some ancient indus valley relic.
:rolleyes:

Samudra
01 Oct 04,, 12:50
Big Bang in hinduism ? Not sure.I am going to dig around to see if i can find any.
You know AUM ? That has some parallel with Big Bang thoery they claim.
I do not know more.But will search around.

Avatar is the image of gold coin issued by Chandra Gupta of the Imperial Gupta Dynasty , the Maharajadhiraja of North India(319-335 A.D).Infact you can see him and the queen the Licchavi Princess Kumaradevi in the coin.Standard pracitse those days to have the king and queen on the coins. :) .

Signature is from the coin issued by chandraGupta II , the great grand son of Chandra Gupta I. He succeeded RamaGupta , the son of Samudra Gupta. :)

PS : I always feel indians in general do not take pride in their history.hence the attempt to induce some intrest. :)

Nisaar
01 Oct 04,, 13:20
Big Bang in hinduism ? Not sure.I am going to dig around to see if i can find any.
You know AUM ? That has some parallel with Big Bang thoery they claim.
I do not know more.But will search around.

Avatar is the image of gold coin issued by Chandra Gupta of the Imperial Gupta Dynasty , the Maharajadhiraja of North India(319-335 A.D).Infact you can see him and the queen the Licchavi Princess Kumaradevi in the coin.Standard pracitse those days to have the king and queen on the coins. .

Signature is from the coin issued by chandraGupta II , the great grand son of Chandra Gupta I. He succeeded RamaGupta , the son of Samudra Gupta.

PS : I always feel indians in general do not take pride in their history.hence the attempt to induce some intrest. :)


Thanks. :)

I also feel a little that way. But I love history (not the war history) of ancient civilization.

I think that we are starting to take pride again because of people like you.


Most nations have always had a glorious history.

BTW. Which was the first civilization to use money/

Samudra
01 Oct 04,, 13:35
Ah ! I see you are intrested in what is called Social History.

Well as a confession , i know zilch about indian history.Its just that i am intrested in that and am learning.Frankly VisioninDark was responsble for a great increase in my knowledge about kushans.I owe him a thanks.

First Civilisation to use money ? Hmm Hmm Hmm , i guess i dont know.
But internet is always helpfull , i just found that Italy was the first to start Banks , derived from some language word "Banko" (?).

We know of some seals in Harappa , but not sure about whether they were currency or not.


India has been one of the earliest issuers of coins in the world (circa 6th Century BC). Few countries rival India for the sheer diversity of its coinage be it minting techniques, motifs, sizes, shapes, the metals used or for that matter the monetary history arising from the Monetary Standards India has experienced (Tri-metallism, Bi-metallism, the Silver Standard, the Gold Exchange Standard as well as fiat money).

Says the Reserve Bank of India website.

mostlymad
01 Oct 04,, 13:45
:) Now i try to advice you to reform islam.But why you alone ? Dont other religions have a resposblity ?
Arent we equally disturbed by islamic fundamentalism today ?

I mean if a bomb explodes does it hurt the muslims alone , infact it hurts us "infidels" more , shouldnt we be more active than muslims in trying to bring them to the mainstream ?

Yes! :) We need first to understand, so that through our ignorance, we do not cause more harm. Forums like this help a great deal. I hope this thread keeps on and on, so I'll think up many questions! ;)

I'd love to hear about the Big Bang Theory and the connection to Hinduism, as well.

Samudra
01 Oct 04,, 13:48
I just found this from a site against Aryan.I.T. ...but very relevant to our line of discussion here...i.e. oceans and religions .




In the beginning, there was darkness hidden in darkness,

all this universe was an unillumined sea.

Rigveda X.129.3



The Gods stood together in the sea. Then as dancers

they generated a swirl of dust.

When, like ascetics, the Gods overflowed the world,

then from hidden in the ocean they brought forth the Sun.

Rigveda X.72.6-7



The creative Sun upheld the Earth with lines of force.

He strengthened the Heaven where there was no support.

As a powerful horse he drew out the atmosphere.

He bound fast the ocean in the boundless realm.

Thence came the world and the upper region,

thence Heaven and Earth were extended.

Rigveda X.149. 1-2



Law and truth from the power of meditation were enkindled.

Thence the night was born and then the flooding ocean.

From the flooding ocean the year was born. The Lord of

all that moves ordained the days and nights.

The Creator formed the Sun and Moon according to previous

worlds; Heaven and Earth, the atmosphere and the realm of light.

Rigveda X.190

Jay
01 Oct 04,, 16:19
I kinda dont believe in the translations of stuff, they jus take the context out of the original text.

Samudra
04 Oct 04,, 05:28
I kinda dont believe in the translations of stuff, they jus take the context out of the original text.

very true. :rolleyes:
but rest assured what i have posted above , is quite a OK translation.. :biggrin: ;)

Jay
04 Oct 04,, 06:25
allright, lets give it a thot :)

Nisaar
05 Oct 04,, 15:42
I kinda dont believe in the translations of stuff, they jus take the context out of the original text.


Yeah thats' kinda true. Like when I translate something to English and then I read it to myself, It sounds quite different, then I try and make it mean the same thing by adding a few words here and there and it ends up totally changing the meaning of the words in its original context.

The best thing to do is to read the particular religion in the language it was originally written in, but since we cant speak every language in the world, we have to translate for others to understand.

As long as they take into account that translation could change the overall meaning a liittle.


Like I heard that the Americans made an advert for coke for taiwan. They tried to say something like,"drink coke and enjoy for life", but when they translated, it read," Coke will bring your ancestors back to life." :biggrin:

tarek
05 Oct 04,, 16:57
Nisaar


"The best thing to do is to read the particular religion in the language it was originally written in"

It seems you think that language stays in some sort of stasis, and we have to challenege this notion - If it is true that language reflects and creates social reality, then we would have problems justifying the notion that knowledge evolves, changes, that societies eveolve and change and that similarly language cannot possibly be in a Stasis, that we engage in a utopian exercise when we imagine that we can hold a language in a stasis (and therefore society in a stasis) and attempt to recreate a social reality that the language in stasis creates -- this is, it seems to me, the same method that the radical islamists proposes in his "selection" of a literal reading of religous texts. It is a dangerous idea because it seeks to recreate a social reality particular to time, space and geography.

mostlymad
05 Oct 04,, 17:55
this is, it seems to me, the same method that the radical islamists proposes in his "selection" of a literal reading of religous texts. It is a dangerous idea because it seeks to recreate a social reality particular to time, space and geography.

good point, tarek! It's fine if you're studying literature and want to maintain the ideas in context of the times, but not if you are defining current laws, customs.

visioninthedark
05 Oct 04,, 17:59
Please allow me to say something in a PURELY personal capacity ....

I as a person .... strongly believe that there is a clear element of divinity about all books and religious scriptures and sages and saints ...

I also believe that with the passage of millenia ..... many of these books may have lost their true meaning and the context of their verses may have been forgotten ....

however ..... I strongly believe that all holy scriptures of all religions and all saints and sages around the whole world were infact trying to point us in the same direction ...

I for one, have never insulted any religion or religious belief due to these strongly held personal views ....

I do critisize acts which I think are objectionable in all religions .... including mine .... I hope a valid critisizm of any act is not taken to mean a slander of a whole religion ..... it certainly is not ...

I therefore respect books such as the RigVeda and personalities such as Lord Raam, etc., although I may not agree with how today's people interpret their acts and revelations ....

Even if a whole book has only one sentence of truth in it .... it DESERVES to be called sacred and respected ...

visioninthedark
05 Oct 04,, 18:25
Simply Amazing ...

this has turned into a most educative and interesting thread ....

Congratulations to all participants .... I am impressed by the scholarly attitude and the tension-free environment ....

and a special thank you to Nisaar who has written the facts so beautifully ...

Jay
05 Oct 04,, 19:22
The belief is that he was divinely inspired to tell his followers to write a book that was relevent to all times and nations of mankind. Just a belief.
I know, if you follow a religion, a God, you need to believe in it/him/her first.
I dont see anything wrong wih it. But Tarek's theory is better (for the mankind). There is always a context for everyting, like the hindu scriptures Ramayana, Mahabahratha and everything.

IMHO, I cannot just blindly follow some traditions just bcoz my forefathers followed them.


No problems, there are two sects of buddhism.One which accepts Buddha as god (hinayana) and other which lives by Buddhas examples and codes of life(mahayana).Hindus worship him as god too....but no temples and kind of things like others.
Buddha himself said that he is not a God. As usual, the people pontified him.
Hindus consider Buddha as Krishna's Avatar. Its like, everytime when something really bad happens in the world, Krishna saves the world thro an avtar, i believe.

Nisaar
07 Oct 04,, 14:36
Yes! :) We need first to understand, so that through our ignorance, we do not cause more harm. Forums like this help a great deal. I hope this thread keeps on and on, so I'll think up many questions! ;)

I'd love to hear about the Big Bang Theory and the connection to Hinduism, as well.

I'll be waiting earnestly for your Questions, so hurry up :)

BTW, what religion do you follow.Tell me so that I can ask you Questions as well.

Nisaar
07 Oct 04,, 14:41
Nisaar


"The best thing to do is to read the particular religion in the language it was originally written in"

It seems you think that language stays in some sort of stasis, and we have to challenege this notion - If it is true that language reflects and creates social reality, then we would have problems justifying the notion that knowledge evolves, changes, that societies eveolve and change and that similarly language cannot possibly be in a Stasis, that we engage in a utopian exercise when we imagine that we can hold a language in a stasis (and therefore society in a stasis) and attempt to recreate a social reality that the language in stasis creates -- this is, it seems to me, the same method that the radical islamists proposes in his "selection" of a literal reading of religous texts. It is a dangerous idea because it seeks to recreate a social reality particular to time, space and geography.


Could you do me a favour.
Read my post in its entirety. (sorry for shouting)

Yes, I was saying that you have to read something in a form that you can understand, but you have to bear in mind that there could be a few errors in translation.

Nisaar
07 Oct 04,, 14:46
Simply Amazing ...

this has turned into a most educative and interesting thread ....

Congratulations to all participants .... I am impressed by the scholarly attitude and the tension-free environment ....

and a special thank you to Nisaar who has written the facts so beautifully ...

Thanks, you made my day. :biggrin:

BTW, are you a shia?

If so Please, please please tell me the difference between the shia and sunni forms of Islam. I've heard and read the differences from scholars who were sunni and I felt them picking on the shia sect a little.

Personally , I don't call myself sunni, just a muslim.

mostlymad
07 Oct 04,, 15:23
BTW, what religion do you follow.Tell me so that I can ask you Questions as well.

I was raised Catholic, very, very strict form of catholicism including schools run completely by nuns and priests, and we had frequent home visits from the priest to keep us on the straight and narrow. :)

I no longer practice that religion. I know a fair bit about Buddhism, but only the group that does not worship Buddha as god or believe in after life. This came from friends and interest, not from joining any group.

I will think up some questions, and look forward to yours. :)

mostlymad
10 Oct 04,, 16:41
I'll be waiting earnestly for your Questions, so hurry up :)


Here's the first of many, in two parts, and if you wish, I'd love to hear your belief, if it differes from your religion's traditional one.

!. Why did god create the universe, and humans, in particular. Christianity has several answers.

2. What is our purpose here?

Thanks!

Confed999
10 Oct 04,, 16:45
2. What is our purpose here?
Oooo, the meaning of life. Interesting question/concept.

Fonnicker
10 Oct 04,, 18:28
Here's the first of many, in two parts, and if you wish, I'd love to hear your belief, if it differes from your religion's traditional one.

!. Why did god create the universe, and humans, in particular. Christianity has several answers.

2. What is our purpose here?

Thanks!


This is a loaded one! How about a new forum for it?

mostlymad
12 Oct 04,, 09:00
a forum to ask and answer questions about each other's beliefs? I guess that's up to the ones who manage this site, but I'd like it.

Nisaar
12 Oct 04,, 13:35
Here's the first of many, in two parts, and if you wish, I'd love to hear your belief, if it differes from your religion's traditional one.

!. Why did god create the universe, and humans, in particular. Christianity has several answers.

2. What is our purpose here?

Thanks!


Give me a few of Days, I'll get back to you. I want to use some quotes from the Quraan.( I don't just wanna pul things outta my head.)

The beleifs we have are very different to those that many muslims share, but anyway, i'll get back to you in a short while. :)

Nisaar
18 Oct 04,, 13:27
The purpose of man:

I've tried to make this as short as possible , but a little background first. Remember that this is just our Beliefs and it is not something I can proove.This is mostly my opinion ( and my moulanas) as you have asked. It is an assumption made by viewing various parts of the Quraan and haadith.
Different muslims have differing beliefs.

Okay, firstly we believe that God has lived forever and always will. He has no equals or no sons, daughters or a wife. In other words he is unchallenged.He is unique and has no partners.He is completely different to us and any other of his creations.

Here is a verse from the Quraan: (Pg: 106 A. yusuf Ali.)

Say, He is God
The one and only,
God the eternal absolute.
He Beget not nor is he begotten
and there is none like unto him.
(Sura 112)


As he has never had an equal and never will,we believe that this has led to an arrogance on his part.This has led to him wanting to be worshiped. And originally, he created angels to do two things. One being to worship him. And the other being to create things(Angels being his appendages). We generally believe that when God wants something to exist, it doesnt just magically appear, it has to go through a process of creation. The time that it takes for these things to be created may seem like a few days to him, but it will seem like millions of years relative to us:


Like example the creation of the Earth, he says :

"And your lord is God who created the Heavens and the Earth in six Days(Yaum)"
[Sura 7 : 54]

The word Yaum is translated as Days here by most, but the word can also mean 'periods'. Any way these days are Days relative to Gods timescale. For us :

"In a day (yaum), whereof your measure is like 50 000 years."
[Sura 70 : 4] also [32:5]

In any case, the numbers 6,7,1000, 50 000 are taken to be the equivalent of the words "very long periods of time" in Arabic. So they don't represent an actual figure.

Like for example :
You can say in English," It took me a millions of days to finish my homework".In Arabic,"It took me 7 days to finish my homework".
So they are numbers that arent really to be taken literally.


Any way back to the story.
So Gods supremacy led him to create a class of beings known as angels that would acknowledge hissupremacy and worship him.
Think about it...
Whats the worth in having a being designed to worship you just worshipping you.No matter what , it will worship you. An angel is like a computer,it just does what you tell it without questions like why? etc...
It is assumed that they have some kind of thought but they don't have emotion.


So God decided to created a second Class of being that he called the JINN race.

These beings will have a few differences to the angels.

They will be able to have thought and emotion.
They will not need to ask for Gods leave for everything they do.
They will be given the ability to travel vast spans of space at will.
They can alter and interfere with gods creation to a certain extent and learn things on their own.

But their restriction is that they MUST worship God.No other option was given to it.
The advantage of this being is that it will have thought about its creator and worship it. It wont just be like an angel doing what it is told, it will worship and and think about the glory and power of its creator in its past time and this will hounour God even more.

Now from this point our beliefs differ slightly with some other muslims, but I will use quotes to justify.


God then chose one of the jinns known as IBLEES (Satan, some assume he is not entirely a Jinn), and thought him the works of many things. Astounded at the way things worked. This new leader of the jinns (Assumption) would go back to the Jinns and try to explain some of the things he learnt. These jinn students once understanding a concept would be so fascinated that they would praise Gods name even more.
But the jinns wanted to explore their realm and talk amongst themselves and didn't really want to worship God.And God knew this.
Every time God created something, he invited all of them to watch.


This time round, God wanted to create a third type of being.Us.
This time God wanted an even better type of worship.And he wanted this being to worship him without even asking them.

In the Quraan it says :

'We created man from a clay that makes sounds('Silsal').From mud moulded into shape.

And the jinn race we had created BEFORE, from the fire of a scorching wind.'

[Sura 15 : 26] Pg 642(A.Yusuf Ali).

Our advantages is that:

We can do as we please in our realm( Known as Jahanna(heaven), or the 7 th realm) .
Everything was at our disposal.
And all of us were thought the nature of 'ALL' things.
We werent asked by God to do anything but one thing, and that is,"not to eat of the forbidden fruits.." In Islam it is referred to as fruits rather than fruit in Christianity.Some people take this to be an actual fruit, others take this to be 'Sex'. Others take this to be 'Benefits'.My interpretation of the word 'Fruits' is 'benefits'.Though not asked to worship God, many of them marvelled at his creation and did. And then there were also some that didnt.God wanted to proove to mankind ( and those jinns I mentioned earlier) that some of them were not worthy of this special treatment. So the whole Satan thing in Islam is a thing that we believe God knew was going to happen.

When mankind was being created, The angels and Iblees were called to see.

God asked them all to bow down to the supremacy of "Adam".Adam is taken to be a single persons name in christianity. The belief is also assumed in Islam to a certain extent. the word "Adam" or "Adami" can actually mean 'Man' in Arabic. So some assume that he is reffering to mankind as a whole and not just a single human being.
Iblees didn't bow down to Adam as he believed that he was better then him.
And this is assumed to be the first time a creature disobeyed God.

God had immediately got angered with Satan and sought a way of punishment.
Ibless's Goal was to try and show God that mankind was not worthy of the extra priveleges that he had given them.
Iblees made a deal with God. You may punish me, but give me a chance and I will show you that I can persuade man to do the one thing you have forbidden them to do(The forbidden fruits/ benefits).
If I am right, Then punish them by putting them in a world like that of the jinns. Put them in a world where they have to aquire knowledge and we will see how unintelligent they are.
God then granted to Satan that if he could make mankind partake of the forbidden Fruits, then he will throw them all out of heaven. But this is what he will do.
He will place them on the first heaven (on Earth) for a period.He will give them Limitations even more severe in some cases then that of the jinns. He will place a veil on them that will limit their intelligence. He will make them unaware of their past(except by religion). And all knowledge they gain will have to be aquired.
God said that even then, mankind will develop and rise beyond satans expectations prooving to him that they are better, even with limitations.Those that don't contribute will be again punished, and those that contribute will return to heaven.
Satan then asked if he could be the one who would lead mens hearts astray on the Earth and this was granted.

God also took jinns and wiped their memories clean and placed them 'in the lower heavens' Of the jinns those that hear the message of the existence of a God ( via listening in on humans) and accept him will be given heaven. Those that don't shall be sent to a 'spiritual school' known as Hell.The Jinns however will be able to tnasgress onto the plane of Earth and will keep their ability to travel vast spans of space.However they must hear the 'The Criterion' (All the revelations by god in this realm) by listening and watching man.Only we will get prophets.


So far the biggest assumption made is that we existed before and initially lived in heaven:

In the Quraan it says:

"We said: 'Oh Adam(Can be translated as Man?), dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as you will.But approach not this tree or ye run into harm and transgression.'

Then did Satan make them slip from the Garden and get them out of the state of felicity on which they had been in.
We said.'Get ye down ALL YE PEOPLE(more than two humans?)' ....."

So why are we here and what was the purpose of man?

Our conclusions are this:

For God to proove to Iblees that even in our current state of limited intelligence, mankind will advance to a point where he will be able to accomplish more than a Jinn even though the Jinns were not as limited as us and given a headstart in this realm. God says that we will overtake them, and proove to satan that man is a better creation.

To separate those who are deserving of the 7 th realm or heaven from those who are not.
Those who are not will be punished in 'Jahannam' or hell. They will be spiritually cleansed.

It is a test for mankind and ultimately a bet with Satan.
In the new realm after 'youmoul Qayyamah' (Day of judgement) Both good humans( not only muslims) and good jinns will be permitted to the 7 th heaven.

Forgive me for any spelling errors.
BTW, We also believe in the comming of Christ.

:)

mostlymad
18 Oct 04,, 14:05
Those who are not will be punished in 'Jahannam' or hell. They will be spiritually cleansed.

Thanks for that beautifully written summary, Nisaar. By spiritually cleansed, do you mean that there is even a chance to leave hell eventually? I always thought the christian concept of hell was very cruel and pointless, to make people suffer for eternity. If they cannot be redeemed, why not just obliterate them?

Thanks again. I'll wait a bit before my next big question. :)

smilingassassin
19 Oct 04,, 01:42
And this stuff comes from the cradle of civilization? You gotta be kidding me!!

lemontree
19 Oct 04,, 07:50
[QUOTE=tarek]Peddling the veil
Razi Azmi


Two French hostages still remain in mortal danger in Iraq because of the French government ban on wearing the hijab (or any religious attire) in public schools. While few Muslims support violence to protest the French decision, a very large number of them all over the world, especially the West, are quite agitated over this issue. The hijab and burqa are important to some of them, and the ban is viewed as an act of deliberate discrimination against Muslims.....QUOTE]

It is funny that the muslims feels that the French law is discriminating against them, then what about the Saudi law of not allowing any expat visitor from carrying or wearing his/her religious symbol in that country. Should people of other religions start kidnapping muslims and ask for revoking that Saudi law.

If they dont like the French law then why the hell are they living there, they should go to Iran or Saudi Arabia where their views are accepted. If the Saudis can make their laws then so can the French, nothing wrong in it.

Nisaar
19 Oct 04,, 10:24
By spiritually cleansed, do you mean that there is even a chance to leave hell eventually?

Yes. That is the belief, however some scholars maintain that the Quraan talks about few people who will burn in hell forever. I am not of this belief.

Damn! I forgot the word, its on the tip of my tongue, but anyway, the word translated shoul be 'Lifetime'.They will at most spend one Lifetime there. And the lifetime there is longer then the liftime on Earth. I'll have to dig a bit deep to find that verse, it may take a while.


This is the ultimate belief :

We existed in heaven before and because we misbehaved, our punishment is Earth. In other words, Earth is Hell for people who lived in heaven, our punishment and spiritual school.

If we continue to transgress, 'Jahanam' will be Earths Hell as a punishment or spiritual school. It is assumed to be the worst form of punishment.


TAREK;
(heres a better response to you statement, my initial response was extremly lame))

The belief is that if you can understand Arabic, you can't necessarily understand the Quraan. Now this may sound weird but this is not the case.

The belief is that when the prophet spoke and the people sarted writing down( Initially Khadijah wrote the Quraan for Mohammed but later he asked dozens of people to record what he said...)
they reproduced what he said perfectly, but when he said words that NEVER existed in Arabic, the people wrote the word down in such a way that it sounded like what the prophet said.

Like example, words like 'Aaliflaaammeem' or 'Haammeem' or 'Teenseenkhaaf' are actually words that don't exist in Arabic.
There are also short verses like this. Where we have no idea what is being said.
So you see, even if you speak Arabic, its quite difficult to interpret the Quraan. Hence a few conflicting ideas have developed.

These verses are known as the 'CODED' parts of the Quraan, and it is assumed that they (if the prophet was a real prophet and not a liar) will be translated in the future when mankind needs them.

To a lesser degree some words used in the Quraan that are not words used in Arabic but words used in 'SYRIAN'(fairly similar to Arabic). This is a more recent discovery.

Let me give you an example:

Let us look at my name , 'NISAAR'. Now I'm not going to go into what it means, but if you drop the 'R' from it, you get the word 'NISA', which means
'Women'. (Don't you dare pick on me :biggrin: )

Anyway, wherever the word Nisa is used in the Quraan, It is immediately followed by the words 'Touched not by man or jinn', immediately indicating that sex does not happen in heaven.

But now there a contradiction in the Quraan.
There is a verse ( i'll find the location if you want) that says that there are virgin pure women in heaven ther for the pleasures of mankind.

Now lets look at the word for women here. Guess what?.........
Its not Nisaa. The word is 'Houri'. Now, the word 'Hur' exists in Arabic, and hur means 'virgin pure '. It is a feminine word. But now see, they used the meaning of the word 'Hur' to describe the word 'Houri' in the Quraan.

So what is the meaning of the word 'Houri'. It is actually a Syrian word which
means ' White raisins'. (white meaning pure)
Now this is a far stretch of an assumption, but this is the basis of the assumption:
The Quraan has many parts were it has contradictions to the life people in heaven will live to the life people in hell will live.
And guess what, this verse is one of them.
(BTW, I didn't discover this, its unny though I just accepted what I was told.)

It is really a misreading of a Syriac expression meaning chilled pure raisins (or drinks) that the just will have the pleasure of tasting in contrast to the boiling drinks promised the unfaithful and damned.

So my conlusion is this and let me be honest, forgive me:

But heck, For 72 virgin prostitutes, Even I would go to America to Kill an American..... :biggrin:


But for 72 chilled pure raisins, maybe I'd go to America and do what i'd do in South Africa, have some KFC, and sob at what opportunities I thought I had.
:biggrin:

Nisaar
19 Oct 04,, 10:43
Two French hostages still remain in mortal danger in Iraq because of the French government ban on wearing the hijab (or any religious attire) in public schools. While few Muslims support violence to protest the French decision, a very large number of them all over the world, especially the West, are quite agitated over this issue. The hijab and burqa are important to some of them, and the ban is viewed as an act of deliberate discrimination against Muslims.....

It is funny that the muslims feels that the French law is discriminating against them, then what about the Saudi law of not allowing any expat visitor from carrying or wearing his/her religious symbol in that country. Should people of other religions start kidnapping muslims and ask for revoking that Saudi law.

If they dont like the French law then why the hell are they living there, they should go to Iran or Saudi Arabia where their views are accepted. If the Saudis can make their laws then so can the French, nothing wrong in it.

True it is that simple. ' If you don't want to be a French muslim, don't be ! '

This whole kidnapping thing is like totally losing all credibility. Like I heard that they will release the hotages for a ransom. Now if they want money, that simply means that they werent interested in the war in the first place?
And a foreign countries laws should have nothing to do with hostage takers in Iraq.

BTW,Muslims also don't like the Saudi regime in Arabia.
Thats a nice comparison you used there.

mostlymad
19 Oct 04,, 21:00
Let us look at my name , 'NISAAR'. Now I'm not going to go into what it means, but if you drop the 'R' from it, you get the word 'NISA', which means 'Women'. (Don't you dare pick on me :biggrin:

far too tempting! :) You had better tell us what Nisaar means, now, or our imaginations will fill in (he-who-dresses-like-women.......woman-who-eats-green-shaving-cream.....) :biggrin:

Ray
19 Oct 04,, 21:14
Nissar,

Thanks for the explanations.

Nisaar
20 Oct 04,, 12:48
far too tempting! :) You had better tell us what Nisaar means, now, or our imaginations will fill in (he-who-dresses-like-women.......woman-who-eats-green-shaving-cream.....) :biggrin:

I'll tell you in a few days..... :) , I like your imagination.

Samudra
20 Oct 04,, 13:25
Nisaar

Now lets talk about heaven and earth...
Please tell me that according to another religion except Hinduism , we take birth on earth to exhaust karma and reach "God" ( you put in words like paradise,heaven for that maybe. ) ?

Even demi-gods , angels have to be born in this sacred earth to be relieved of their
karma ( wrong doings if you wish) , now now now , tell me that is true in other religions too ....Even great incarnations of gods like Krsna,vishwamitra,Ram had to do something to lessen their karma ...

May be , may be we call earth sacred and you something else like "damned" ? Though we have a number of words like hell in our religion , the general idea is that you will be reborn to exhaust your karma...anything parallel to that in islam/something else too ?

the above principles are the kernel of buddhism , which originated out of hinduism.

mostlymad
20 Oct 04,, 16:10
chandragupta,

with catholics, there is pretty much one chance at heaven. According to that belief, we are born in sin and carry sin until we are baptized. Through the ritual of baptism, we acknowledge Jesus as saviour and our original sin is washed away by the blood of Jesus (through his dying for us).

Original sin is the sin, they believe, we are all born with since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and became aware of good and evil. This awareness cost us our innocence, and that is why we are all born with sin. It is transferred to each generation.

We have a chance, supposedly, to rid ourselves of this sin by taking Jesus into our heart, but baptism is necessary in the process.

The rest of life is spent avoiding mortal sins, sins so bad that you would be punished eternally by going to hell, no chance of redemption. Hell only has an entrance, no exit. :frown:

To go to heaven, you avoid these mortal sins, and go to confession to tell a priest about your sins regularly. He usually gives you a penance (traditionally, telling you to say so many prayers, but more priests now ask people to do a good deed), and the priest usually forgives you in god’s name, but it is up to that priest. Only a priest can forgive you according to hard core catholics. If you die without a priest giving absolution, you die with whatever sins you haven’t yet confessed to.

It is not necessary to do good things to go to heaven, just don’t sin too much and make sure you are baptized and not all the good deads, goodness of heart will open heaven to you if you are not baptized.

If you die with sins, you will go to hell if they are mortal sins (really bad ones, such as killing someone). If you die with a lot of venial (smaller, forgivable) sins, several things can happen, and catholics aren’t clear on this. You will probably burn in purgatory for awhile (could be years, decades, centuries) and when god feels you have been cleansed by the fires of purgatory, you then go to heaven.

If a priest absolves you at the moment of your death (or shortly before) you will likely go straight to heaven, no scorching needed :) . It is at the priest’s discretion. I think you can even be forgiven for a mortal sin, if the priest feels you are repentant enough.

If a baby dies without being baptized...different beliefs on that one, and the Vatican won’t make a firm statement: Augustinian belief is that the poor thing, tainted with original sin goes to limbo, a place neither in heaven or hell and stays there for eternity. According to Augustine, these babies suffer physical pain (a milder form of burning than in hell) for eternity :mad: . Others believe that the simple idea of being deprived of god’s presence for eternity is punishment enough, and they think that is what limbo is.

According to catholics, you, chandragupta, would go to limbo because you still carry original sin, but seem overall to be a pretty nice guy. Now how fair is that?

Modern concepts in catholicism (but not everyone believews this) include the idea that Jesus will go to limbo, or purgatory before the apocalypse and give everyone there - unbpatized babies, and good people who are of other religions or died without baptism the chance to convert and be baptized, so they can go to heaven. Those in hell, however, will have no such chance.

This summary explains a lot why I questioned and left the catholic church even when I was a child. I found it harsh, unforgiving, and found it hard to believe in a god who would punish, for eternity (seems like overkill and to no point) those he created and calls his children, without any chance of redemption. There were many other things that bothered me as well, but the heaven, hell, limbo, baptism bit was the clincher. Even after death, there was suffering, and to no point. Being good didn’t seem to be taken into account, either. Jesus taught goodness, but avoiding sin was enough to get you to heaven.

Nisaar
20 Oct 04,, 16:36
May be , may be we call earth sacred and you something else like "damned" ? Though we have a number of words like hell in our religion , the general idea is that you will be reborn to exhaust your karma...anything parallel to that in islam/something else too ?




Ummm........, Well, The belief is that if we fail here, a newer realm, with hardships more challenging than Earth ( aka HELL) is what we will be sent to for about a lifetime at most. I think that each 'Ruh' (soul) is only given one chance to proove that they are worthy of the 7th realm first time out.

Jahanam also has varying degrees of punishment. The belief is that once you have learnt all your 'lessons', you will be admitted to the 7th realm.
There is another part of the Quraan that says that God may forgive certain minor sins without sending us to Jahanam. I'll find the verse if you want.


I seem to have painted a rather pretty picture of Islam on this site and I am feeling a bit bad for that as a result. I mean in theory Islam should be perfect and peacful, but in practise it is NOT. Many Muslim leaders add false claims into Islam, and I don't think I need to tell you guys about terrorism, we all know about that. But ultimately, the only true source for Islam is the Quraan. (And the Haadith only slightly.).Muslim Leaders ( my assumption is that most of them are atheist) always use 'Fatwas' to control the muslim population and you will never see them quote anything from the Quraan. Since the Fatwa is a "Religious OPINION" and no-one questions them, they can practically do as they please.

I'm still upset about that killing of that 16 year old girl in that other forumn. I can't get her innocent face out of my head... :frown:

Nisaar
20 Oct 04,, 16:43
This summary explains a lot why I questioned and left the catholic church even when I was a child. I found it harsh, unforgiving, and found it hard to believe in a god who would punish, for eternity (seems like overkill and to no point) those he created and calls his children, without any chance of redemption. There were many other things that bothered me as well, but the heaven, hell, limbo, baptism bit was the clincher. Even after death, there was suffering, and to no point. Being good didn’t seem to be taken into account, either. Jesus taught goodness, but avoiding sin was enough to get you to heaven.




Mostlymad, time for my Question......

You say that Catholics believe in eternal damnation. This belief, Is it in the Bible or was it a statement that someone told you.?

If it is in the Bible, could you give me a quote....

Why I am asking is because of own personal experiences. Like alot of these silly moulanas make some silly statements and say that it is in the Quraan, and when I check it out, its not.

Do all sects of Christianity believe in eternal damnation?

Samudra
20 Oct 04,, 17:46
mostlymad
Dont get me wrong , just sit down and read how many times you have typed "priest"...Do you get an impression that during the later years of christ , these priest added stories of eternal damnation ? Just like it happened with hinduisms Brahmans,and islams mullahs.....The post painted a picture of a religion highly influenced by priest rather than god .! They are demi-gods

So maybe if we could find the source (in Bible?) about this eternal damnation , we might pin point the problem with these so called priest and their systematic

Christ to me is god not because he died for those who believe in him , but because suffered pain so that the very same persons who lashed him ,who nailed him all were forgiven.Did he not pray for them ? You know i did not like the film "Passion of Christ" because they show a fellow who is bit upon by birds after Christ died.(he mocks at christ)..Here they were telling a story of a person who suffered for others like never before, yet they would want to rejoice at the fact that someone suffered because he mocked christ...

mostlymad
20 Oct 04,, 18:41
Dont get me wrong , just sit down and read how many times you have typed "priest"...Do you get an impression that during the later years of christ , these priest added stories of eternal damnation ? Just like it happened with hinduisms Brahmans,and islams mullahs.....The post painted a picture of a religion highly influenced by priest rather than god .! They are demi-gods

You are absolutely right, and I chose the word "priest" deliberately, so that it would be clear where many of these beliefs come from, and at the least, who reinforces them. I have known many fine priests (not in the biblical sense!! :) , so I am not implying that they are all corrupt, but rather the influence these men have had on shaping and controlling catholicism.


So maybe if we could find the source (in Bible?) about this eternal damnation , we might pin point the problem with these so called priest and their systematic

There is no definte reference to eternal damnation in the bible, as far as I know (but correct me if someone out there knows more). It is rather vague, and the concept was emphasized and refined mainly by Augustine, though others contributed.


You know i did not like the film "Passion of Christ" because they show a fellow who is bit upon by birds after Christ died.(he mocks at christ)..Here they were telling a story of a person who suffered for others like never before, yet they would want to rejoice at the fact that someone suffered because he mocked christ...

I felt the same way. That unfortunately, is part of some of the teachings of people like Augustine (I'm not trying to pick on him, but he really had that fire and brimstone approach). He said part of the reward in heaven will be to look down and see sinners in hell. :mad: Taking pleasure in the pain of others isn't what Jesus taught, but there is a lot of that in the Old Testament, and not unusual to find in christians, unfortunatley. It is not deliberately taught, but underlies the attitude with many, as though there is some type of justice in the suffering of those considered sinners.

mostlymad
20 Oct 04,, 18:49
You say that Catholics believe in eternal damnation. This belief, Is it in the Bible or was it a statement that someone told you.?

If it is in the Bible, could you give me a quote....

Why I am asking is because of own personal experiences. Like alot of these silly moulanas make some silly statements and say that it is in the Quraan, and when I check it out, its not.

Do all sects of Christianity believe in eternal damnation?

oh, you are paying me back, aren't you? ;) You truly are a mullah :) . You know I'm kidding.

I answered some of that in response to Chandra's question, but will do some research as well and get back to you.

Definite answers:

YES!!! Catholics firmly believe in eternal damnation. That's why I refer to catholics, not christians in general since there are many off-shoots from the first group of christians.

As to what other groups believe, I will do my best to find out. Most Christian sects do believe in eternal damnation, but there may be a very, very few who don't. Hell plays a huge part in christian films, belief, even ideas of reward and punishment, as well as justice.

Fonnicker
20 Oct 04,, 19:30
A theory ( to be taken lightly :) )

1. According to Nisaar (and I apologise it I am over simplifying) Satan and God agree that satan can influence man.


God then granted to Satan that if he could make mankind partake of the forbidden Fruits, then he will throw them all out of heaven. But this is what he will do.
He will place them on the first heaven (on Earth) for a period.He will give them Limitations even more severe in some cases then that of the jinns. He will place a veil on them that will limit their intelligence. He will make them unaware of their past(except by religion). And all knowledge they gain will have to be aquired.
God said that even then, mankind will develop and rise beyond satans expectations prooving to him that they are better, even with limitations.Those that don't contribute will be again punished, and those that contribute will return to heaven.
Satan then asked if he could be the one who would lead mens hearts astray on the Earth and this was granted.

2. Question for Catholics: Is it true that there is dogma something to the tune of, "As it is decreed on Earth, so shall it be in Heavan" meaning that Church law on earth will be upheld in heaven? i.e. contraception (every sperm is sacred).

3. If yes, then ultimately man can change God's law.

therefore,

God grants Satan the freedom to influence man, trusting that man will rise above it. Satan, being the sneaky devil he is, can influence Church Officials as well. So it could be argued that if Satan had a hand in influencing church doctrine via influencing man, Satan can use man to change God's law.

It's a stretch I know. :redface:

mostlymad
20 Oct 04,, 19:54
Here is a quiz to see if you will go to hell. It isn't Catholic. It's from a Baptist site. Baptists tend to focus a lot on hellfire and damnation. I find this quiz very harsh and would definitely go to hell if it were accurate! :redface:

hell quiz (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1200/ntdamnation.html)

still working on the other Qs.

Fonnicker
20 Oct 04,, 20:29
Here is a quiz to see if you will go to hell. It isn't Catholic. It's from a Baptist site. Baptists tend to focus a lot on hellfire and damnation. I find this quiz very harsh and would definitely go to hell if it were accurate! :redface:

hell quiz (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1200/ntdamnation.html)

still working on the other Qs.


Me too. Athough I wish there were some "none of the above" answers.

mostlymad
20 Oct 04,, 21:27
Some answers -

Three christian systems of belief:

The Roman Catholic Church bases its belief on Heaven, Purgatory and Hell on some main biblical passages in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) and the 14 books of the Apocrypha, supplemented by church wisdom.

Conservative Protestant denominations tend to base their belief on the literal interpretation of certain passages of the Bible, and symbolic interpretations of others. They arrive at very different beliefs because they select different passages to read literally.
Liberal Christians believe that the beliefs of the authors of the Bible evolved greatly over the approximately 850 years during which the Bible was written. Thus, there is little internal consistency in the Bible on the afterlife.

Is there eternal damnation? As with Nisaar's explanation (re: interpretation of original word) we run into the same problem here, with the word "aeon." -

The doctrine of eternal damnation mainly revolves around the meaning of the Greek word "aionios", usually translated into English by "eternal" or "everlasting"--just as the English word "aeon" means age. The question now before us: does "aionios" definitely mean eternal? Or might it mean "age-lasting" as one would expect from its derivation? Revelation 14: 10,11 speaks of those who 'will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever ... '. The phrase "eis tous aionas ton aionon" in Greek is literally "through ages of ages".

Hell as a real place (as found in the bible) -

I'll get back to that. There is so much written on it and I want to make a brief summary. Again, it has a great deal to do with the word "hell" being applied to other terms (gehenna, hades, sheol) whcih mean something very different. Also, interesting, is the context in which these terms and statements appear in the Bible. If they are in songs, or "poems" intended to be lyrical, how "real" are they? Are they symbols used as any writer of such material would use symbols, metaphors?

(Basically, regardless of what is written in the bible, one can argue - very powerfully - that the terms "eternal damnation" and "hell" are interpretations of original words that meant something quite different.)

Horrido
20 Oct 04,, 21:36
I miss Hell...

mostlymad
20 Oct 04,, 21:48
I could introduce you to my ex, Horrido..

Horrido
20 Oct 04,, 23:41
ROFLMAO! Good point.

Jay
21 Oct 04,, 00:44
one man's hell is another man's heaven :biggrin: atleast for a while :tongue:

Samudra
21 Oct 04,, 04:40
It is not deliberately taught, but underlies the attitude with many, as though there is some type of justice in the suffering of those considered sinners.

It might not be a delibrate act today , may be 2000 years before ? People could be easily threatned with fire and hell..Sometime in the future , i have to read about how christianity took-off after christ died.Those stories St.Peter , etc etc should make intresting reading....


Nisaar
When you find that verse from Quraan , do look for mis-interpretations..i am a bit curious on that bit.

lemontree
21 Oct 04,, 07:19
mostlymad
Dont get me wrong , just sit down and read how many times you have typed "priest"...Do you get an impression that during the later years of christ , these priest added stories of eternal damnation ? Just like it happened with hinduisms Brahmans,and islams mullahs.....The post painted a picture of a religion highly influenced by priest rather than god .! They are demi-gods

The priests are the main culprets in all religions, for distorting it to suit their needs of power. Most eastern peoples are very religious, so the priesthood find it very simple to exert their "nonexistsnt" authority on them. Luckyly most religions except Islam permit debates on their respective theoloy/mythological beliefs. My father's younger brother is a priest and we have heated debates on some aspects of the church/bible. A lot of "rule" are made by the priesthood. Baptised or not, a good soul will go to heaven and be in peace. I fail to see why a person like Mahatma Gandhi or Khan Abdul Gafar Khan (frontier gandhi) should not be in heaven, just because they were not baptised? BTW even Christ was against the priests, who were more busy in the political hirarchy of the temple than in helping the people. It is the priests who crucified him.



You know i did not like the film "Passion of Christ" because they show a fellow who is bit upon by birds after Christ died.(he mocks at christ)..Here they were telling a story of a person who suffered for others like never before, yet they would want to rejoice at the fact that someone suffered because he mocked christ...

That bit (about the bird pecking the eyes) was the Mel Gibson's imagination!
Its not in the Bible.

Nisaar
21 Oct 04,, 11:35
far too tempting! :) You had better tell us what Nisaar means, now, or our imaginations will fill in (he-who-dresses-like-women.......woman-who-eats-green-shaving-cream.....) :biggrin:

The name should mean Leader or president. :)

Nisaar
21 Oct 04,, 11:52
A theory ( to be taken lightly :) )

1. According to Nisaar (and I apologise it I am over simplifying) Satan and God agree that satan can influence man.



Yes, But only for 2 instances :

1.) In the instance of when we first existed in heaven. He was granted permission to intervene.

2.) On Earth where he can intervene with the destiny of man. ( He cannot directly make a choice for us, but can influence us.)

Theres theories that like beings (also some Jinns) other than Iblees can come down to Earth and fool around with us. :eek:



Its believed that after the Day of judgement, he will have to admit that God was right about man and he will also be punished in hell for an appointed time....


We will rise above his Kind and be masters of our own destiny, but we will start to forget God again and when no-one mentions his name or thinks about him, he will destroy this realm and That will be the Day of judgment.

Oh!, chandragupta
The Quraan refers to the realm that we currently live in as "The lowest heaven" or the "1st heaven". I think that answers one of your Questions?

Nisaar
21 Oct 04,, 11:58
oh, you are paying me back, aren't you? ;) You truly are a mullah :) . You know I'm kidding.


Oh, Oh, so its like that I see.....

I think its high time I paid you a Visit,
What can I say,
I've got a surprise present for you.

I can't tell you what it is (its a surprise), but i'll give you 4 hints:

1. I'm a mullah.
2. It will Blow you away.
3. I'm a mullah.
4. Its' Ticking.

:biggrin:





I answered some of that in response to Chandra's question, but will do some research as well and get back to you.



Thanks. :)

Nisaar
21 Oct 04,, 13:45
Nisaar

When you find that verse from Quraan , do look for mis-interpretations..i am a bit curious on that bit.


Shucks, I forgot(I'm fasting I guess, my capabilities are reduced) if you tell me which one again I'll post it. :)

Nisaar
21 Oct 04,, 14:04
.......Luckyly most religions except Islam permit debates on their respective theoloy/mythological beliefs.

Thats usually the case.
But back here theres frequent debates in the mosques. Also whenever a moulana comes from oversees, we usually blast them with a barrage of questions......

Apparently in the middle East you can like get killed for doing stuff like that




That bit (about the bird pecking the eyes) was the Mel Gibson's imagination!
Its not in the Bible.

He shouldn't have done that. Hes slowly corrupting the tale and like a thousand years from now the whole story will be completely different.

Nisaar
21 Oct 04,, 14:06
I miss Hell...

Elaborate more for us Horrido. :)

Nisaar
21 Oct 04,, 14:16
I could introduce you to my ex, Horrido..

just a joke:

Ever wondered why we have one less rib in our rib-cage ?

Well you see, when Adam was first created, he was alone and got so lonely that he decided to approach God and ask him for a partner; So he did.

And God said, " Well Adam, If I take one of your lips and one of your eyes and half of your brain and one of your legs and one of your arms and one of your lungs and half of your liver......"

" But wait !!! ", said Adam," What can you give me for just a rib ?....." :biggrin:

And God said," You don't want to know !!! " :biggrin:

mostlymad
21 Oct 04,, 14:48
I fail to see why a person like Mahatma Gandhi or Khan Abdul Gafar Khan (frontier gandhi) should not be in heaven, just because they were not baptised? BTW even Christ was against the priests, who were more busy in the political hirarchy of the temple than in helping the people. It is the priests who crucified him.

that's what bothered me as a catholic child, that being baptized was more important than being a good person. I agree with you. You must have very interesting talks with your father's brother!

mostlymad
21 Oct 04,, 14:49
He shouldn't have done that. Hes slowly corrupting the tale and like a thousand years from now the whole story will be completely different.

sure. Gibson is like Disney. Take a classic and change it, especially the ending because it makes a better story. :mad:

mostlymad
21 Oct 04,, 14:51
It might not be a delibrate act today , may be 2000 years before ? People could be easily threatned with fire and hell.

That seems to be the case. Even in school, the nuns used threats of fire and hell to get us to behave. :frown:

mostlymad
21 Oct 04,, 14:55
I think its high time I paid you a Visit,
What can I say,
I've got a surprise present for you.

oh, I am truly frightened! :rolleyes:
(great Leader or president) :)

Fonnicker
21 Oct 04,, 15:33
that's what bothered me as a catholic child, that being baptized was more important than being a good person. I agree with you. You must have very interesting talks with your father's brother!


Absolutely, that has been one of my most heated arguments. It never made sense to me. Also, unfortunately when I was young I had a step father who was involved with Cavary Baptist Church. I don't know if you've heard of it, but its something of a chain of churches - the McDonalds of religion if you will. I remember the first time I went, the sermon involved nothing more than a slide show disputing and talking down about other religions and forms of worship. Even at a young age I felt that this made no sense. To this day, I still don't understand how we can all believe pretty much the same thing, yet kill each other over minor details.

A serious question: Are there any passages in the religious texts (Bible, Quran, etc.) or even teachings that justify the violence? What laws, teachings or beliefs are used to justify suicide bombers, holy wars, religious persecution, etc.? I ask because I am really curious. You know the whole 72 virgins thing, the plenary indulgences granted Christians who crusade. What in the teachings helps people justify their disregard for the ultimate "Thou shall not kill" clause?

I don't intend to offend. This has been a very informative thread and I thank you all for sharing :)

mostlymad
21 Oct 04,, 19:31
Are there any passages in the religious texts (Bible, Quran, etc.) or even teachings that justify the violence? What laws, teachings or beliefs are used to justify suicide bombers, holy wars, religious persecution, etc.? I ask because I am really curious. You know the whole 72 virgins thing, the plenary indulgences granted Christians who crusade. What in the teachings helps people justify their disregard for the ultimate "Thou shall not kill" clause?

The Old Testament has many instances displaying god as a war-like god, encouraging acts of war. A striking example is when he hardens Pharaoh’s heart so that the ruler does not let the Israelites leave. Why? So that he can show his power. After sending several plagues, the Pharaoh weakens, but god hardens his heart again so that he can show his power once more by killing all the first born.

I have included several quotes on war in general, as well. Pretty harsh.

The New Testament is quite different, with forgiveness and peace constantly promoted. I read this is because the Old Testament covered not only religion, but civil law (I suppose that the violence and excessive revenge reflects the times), while the New Testament, by what Jesus taught, was not meant for civil law.

Exodus

7:3-7:4 I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.

Psalms ch 18

He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms. Thou hast also given me the shield of thy salvation: and thy right hand hath holden me up, and thy gentleness hath made me great....I have pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them: neither did I turn again till they were consumed. I have wounded them that they were not able to rise: they are fallen under my feet. For thou hast girded me with strength unto the battle: thou hast subdued under me those that rose up against me.
Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies; that I might destroy them that hate me. They cried, but there was none to save them: even unto the LORD, but he answered them not.

Then did I beat them small as the dust before the wind: I did cast them out as the dirt in the streets. He delivereth me from mine enemies: yea, thou liftest me up above those that rise up against me: thou hast delivered me from the violent man.

(that last bit is pretty telling. It seems it's ok to use violence against violent men)

Psalms, Chapter 144

Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight.


(my personal belief is that Jesus tried to change the violent aspects of his religion, and succeeded to some degree, but when a group wants to make war, it is convenient to turn to the wrath of god in the Old Testament to justify their actions.)


I don't intend to offend.

If thine tongue offends thee, ...you know the rest... ;)

I don't find this desire for truth offensive. :) Makes me have to look things up and think, so thanks!

Fonnicker
21 Oct 04,, 21:08
The Old Testament has many instances displaying god as a war-like god, encouraging acts of war. A striking example is when he hardens Pharaoh’s heart so that the ruler does not let the Israelites leave. Why? So that he can show his power. After sending several plagues, the Pharaoh weakens, but god hardens his heart again so that he can show his power once more by killing all the first born.

I have included several quotes on war in general, as well. Pretty harsh.

The New Testament is quite different, with forgiveness and peace constantly promoted. I read this is because the Old Testament covered not only religion, but civil law (I suppose that the violence and excessive revenge reflects the times), while the New Testament, by what Jesus taught, was not meant for civil law.

Exodus

7:3-7:4 I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.

Psalms ch 18

He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms. Thou hast also given me the shield of thy salvation: and thy right hand hath holden me up, and thy gentleness hath made me great....I have pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them: neither did I turn again till they were consumed. I have wounded them that they were not able to rise: they are fallen under my feet. For thou hast girded me with strength unto the battle: thou hast subdued under me those that rose up against me.
Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies; that I might destroy them that hate me. They cried, but there was none to save them: even unto the LORD, but he answered them not.

Then did I beat them small as the dust before the wind: I did cast them out as the dirt in the streets. He delivereth me from mine enemies: yea, thou liftest me up above those that rise up against me: thou hast delivered me from the violent man.

(that last bit is pretty telling. It seems it's ok to use violence against violent men)

Psalms, Chapter 144

Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight.


(my personal belief is that Jesus tried to change the violent aspects of his religion, and succeeded to some degree, but when a group wants to make war, it is convenient to turn to the wrath of god in the Old Testament to justify their actions.)



If thine tongue offends thee, ...you know the rest... ;)

I don't find this desire for truth offensive. :) Makes me have to look things up and think, so thanks!


Wow! I guess what I find so terribly offensive about religious ideals as they pertain to war is the general concept that God would prefer one people over another. In my book, it belittles the notion of the God that we are to revere; the just God; the forgiving God. A comedian once said that it's amusing when athletes attribute their performace to the grace of god, but never the opposite. "I would have scored a touchdown if God didn't make me fumble!!"

mostlymad
21 Oct 04,, 21:38
just a joke:

Ever wondered why we have one less rib in our rib-cage ?

go ahead...laugh it up, El President. Here's one:

After a great deal of thought, this guy Terry asks god if he can be changed into a woman. God considers Terry's reasons and says, "sure, but I must warn you - the physical change isn't a big deal, but in fairness I had better tell you that in order to make you into a woman, I have to remove 3/4 of your brain."

Terry smiles and says, "that,s just fine, Lord. After watching men and women for some time, I've come to the conclusion that it only takes a woman 1/4 of a brain to do what it takes a man a whole brain to do."

(BTW, I am one of those "nisa" and could just as easily visit you. I won't bring a gift, but think about these two words as you go to sleep tonight: Lorena Bobbit see - lorena (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/14/bobbitt.arrest/) .)

:biggrin:

Samudra
24 Oct 04,, 14:44
As i have said earlier , a few thousand years ago priests found it easier to control men by scaring him with verses like that...Strange that humans are still reading and memorising them....

May be thats why , i have some strange affection for nature worship in India like Bhumi Pooja , surya , chandra , and all the prayers and festivals they devote to the life giving rivers...Atleast you thank some one/thing which provides you for your daily life....Gee , i would be afraid , very afraid of a god who hardens the heart of a King so that he can show his power....look very carefully you will see somewhere Priests using those verses to frighten people...

The secret code of the religious problems has been broken ladies and gentlemen , its the Priests and their misinterpretations.All thanks to mostlymad for typing in "priests".

lemontree
25 Oct 04,, 07:30
... You must have very interesting talks with your father's brother!

He does'nt argue much with me. The point is a person should live as justly as he/she can. Mistakes will be committed.."but to err is human". For people who quote the holy books too much just ponder. ...When God made the world, on the first day he said let there be light. Then on the fourth day he made the sun, moon and stars....My question is the sun was made on the fourth day, how did we get light on the first day.

All holy books should be taken as spiritual guides, and we should not get fanatical about them These books were after all written by men, so there are bound to be some mistakes.

There is not much of a difference in the Old Testament and the Koran, yet these two great religions are at logger heads. Because of priests.

Moses is considered a prophet by the Jews, Christains and the Muslims. If we believe the same things, then why are we fighting. :confused:

Nisaar
25 Oct 04,, 10:08
Actually, on a serious note, The belief in islam is that women are smarter than Men. And I think so too.

BTW, when I get married, I'm definitely gonna only have takeout at my house, woudn't want any knives or anything in my ladys hand :biggrin:

mostlymad
25 Oct 04,, 14:20
All holy books should be taken as spiritual guides

Spiritual is what seems to get lost in the rituals and doctrine. :frown:

Chandragupta, I also feel drawn to the nature worship of Native North Americans, probably for the same reasons. I don't believe in it, but it just feels nice! I'm part native, though, somaybe it stems from that. Their ceremonies and art are very beautiful.

mostlymad
25 Oct 04,, 14:25
The belief in islam is that women are smarter than Men.

Why then the clear bias against women? (not with you, but Islam in general)

Up until fairly recently, women were treated badly in the Catholic church as well. The New Testament states women should not speak in church, and if they have something to say about religion, they should first run it by their husband, so that he can set them straight.

Fonnicker
25 Oct 04,, 16:57
Why then the clear bias against women? (not with you, but Islam in general)

Up until fairly recently, women were treated badly in the Catholic church as well. The New Testament states women should not speak in church, and if they have something to say about religion, they should first run it by their husband, so that he can set them straight.


IMHO it is all about power and control. First at the family level, then the church, then humanity in general.

Nisaar
26 Oct 04,, 17:26
Why then the clear bias against women? (not with you, but Islam in general)

Up until fairly recently, women were treated badly in the Catholic church as well. The New Testament states women should not speak in church, and if they have something to say about religion, they should first run it by their husband, so that he can set them straight.

Yeah, I guess its all about control. But as a Muslim , I guess I should try and change that . Which is why I always show muslim women with bullet proof masks that verse in the Quraan.

Your part native American!!!!
Wow, you have to tell me more..... :)

You arent related to Geronimo or something are you? :)

mostlymad
26 Oct 04,, 17:34
You arent related to Geronimo or something are you? :)

No, different tribe. Algonquin/Ojibwa, pretty peaceful. Much further North.

(good idea about the cooking/ordering out/knives, BTW :) )

Samudra
27 Oct 04,, 05:21
Mostlymad
I always loved those native people... hunting for some readable material on them..
So whats special about Geronimo..?

Off-Topic :: Is Seattle the name of tribal chief ?

Fonnicker
27 Oct 04,, 06:08
Mostlymad
I always loved those native people... hunting for some readable material on them..
So whats special about Geronimo..?

Off-Topic :: Is Seattle the name of tribal chief ?


I can speak to that. Yes, it is. In washington state, most citys, counties, rivers, lakes, etc. are named after native american tribes, people, or the original Native names.
Seattle, Spokane, Yakima, Colville...

Samudra
27 Oct 04,, 06:29
off Topic : (will delete soon)
Thankx dude.
There exists a famous letter seattle wrote to some white men who wanted to buy a huge chunk of land under his control...i am searching for that.

Nisaar
27 Oct 04,, 11:11
Anway, back to a more serious note:



Why then the clear bias against women? (not with you, but Islam in general)

Cause men are pigs :) .
I guess that women must group together and stand up for their rights. But ultimately, its time for the clerics to go, or at least rule with common sense, or at least with the Quraan and not the shaaria.



Up until fairly recently, women were treated badly in the Catholic church as well. The New Testament states women should not speak in church, and if they have something to say about religion, they should first run it by their husband, so that he can set them straight.

Umm, I don't mean to give you too much work, but could you please give me the location of that verse. :)

Oh, BTW, I was also wondering if you could give me a little low down on the Native American religion. Like whats it called?, is it polytheistic ?, etc....

Alot of people have told me conflicting things on their beliefs.

Nisaar
27 Oct 04,, 11:33
I always loved those native people... hunting for some readable material on them..
So whats special about Geronimo..?



He was a great warrior who fought the Invading colonialists, and ultimately ended up being sentenced to Death by being Hung.His last speech is quite famous where he says something like ,"We will fight you no more......If you were in my position, you would have done the same....."

And the tale goes that as Geronimo turned around and walked to the place where he was going to be hung, the judged laughed and responded by saying," Its funny, hes right, I would have done exactly the same thing!"

From what I've read on the guy, he learnt how to use a shotgun and stuff like that. Each time (quite a few times) he mustered up a force capable of inflicting severe damage to the colonialists, his leaders told him not to fight.(also saw this in a movie a while back). There came a time where the Europeans were fighting amongst themselves, and Geronimos plan was to attack both forces after they fought each other. This was also stopped by the tribe leader of the time.

Another tactic of the colonialists was to sign peace treaties with the natives when they needed to regroup and after they had done so, they would violate the treaties by attacking the natives.

Sad part of history :mad:

I dont know how much of this is correct as different stories give different accounts of the happenings.

Officer of Engineers
27 Oct 04,, 15:03
There tends to be modern interruptations to say everything the Native North Americans did were in the right and everything the White Man did was in the wrong. History is alot more complex than that.

Some things are just plain stomach churning. The Aztecs killed 10,000 people in one day to make a soup for the city to eat.

The Europeans brought their wars over to North America. The Native North Americans chosed sides. The Native North Americans fought their own wars. The European colonists chosed sides, most notably in what the Americans called the French-Indian Wars.

Not all White Man violated their treaties. The British went to war on the Native North American's behalf in the War of 1812 with British General Sir Issac Brock promisng an Indian homeland to Tecumseh in the area of Detroit.

mostlymad
27 Oct 04,, 18:11
Umm, I don't mean to give you too much work, but could you please give me the location of that verse. :)

yeah, right...this is starting to feel like a test...(actually, I appreciate the chance to re-read the scriptures. I've forgotten so much!

On women and speaking, and speaking about religion:

Corinthians
14:34-14:35
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Timothy
2:11-2:12
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Numbers 30:13 (even a woman's vow to god was worthless unless the hubby approved it) (Old Testament, this)
Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.


On women in general:

Corinthians 7:1
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (this is Paul; but he goes on to say that if you absolutely must be with a woman, marry her so that you don't become polluted, or words along that line)

Nahum 3:13
Behold, thy people in the midst of thee are women: (like it's a bad thing, making them weak)

Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. (many references about pregnant woman and children paying in pain.)

Exodus 21:7
if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. (women considered objects, property of men)

Leviticus (this one is very revealing - Old testament, on how females are considered impure; note the disparity between cleanliness and male and female babies)

12:2 If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days;
12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation:
and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

I will have to take some time to answer the question on Native American religion; there are different beliefs, and I don't want to mislead you...or do I? Isn't that what women do? ;)

mostlymad
27 Oct 04,, 18:19
There tends to be modern interruptations to say everything the Native North Americans did were in the right and everything the White Man did was in the wrong. History is alot more complex than that.

yes - the myth of the Noble Savage, same for North America as Africa. We tend to romanticise native history.

I am not terribly familiar with Seattle, Geronimo and co. They were in the US. I am more familiar with tribes that existed in what is now Canada and it is only through school and personal interest with focus on culture, religion, and early history.

OoE, weren't North American natives largely responsible for changing French and English fighting styles (camouflage, raids, etc as opposed to open field conflict?)

Officer of Engineers
28 Oct 04,, 02:44
OoE, weren't North American natives largely responsible for changing French and English fighting styles (camouflage, raids, etc as opposed to open field conflict?)

The British raised entire regiments, The Queen's York Rangers (1st American Regiment) (Royal Canadian Armoured Corps) comes to mind, based upon North American experiences.

Kipruss
28 Oct 04,, 04:08
Just popping back to the original topic, but without the joke, for a second:).

We have had a situation in NZ where a Muslim women has stated she would rather kill herself than take off her Burqa to give evidence in an insurance fraud trial of another person. She believes her face being seen by men who are not related to her will affect her in the eyes of her god. She said, "If I uncover my face then I would be in trouble with God."

I try to be tolerant of the views of others (not that you might believe that when it comes to Republicans:)) but this seems too extreme to me. This woman was taken in as a refugee from Afganistan 10 years ago and it seems she hasn't made much of an effort to assimilate into our culture, or hasn't been allowed to by the men in her life. Perhaps the only difference between her life here and in Afganistan is she is eating better food and not in danger of being killed. Maybe that is all that can be expected in this case. A shame for her.

tarek
01 Nov 04,, 06:11
Kipruss

No cop outs - in this world you musty comply with the law of the land -- God will sort out his own. The woman in question, well, we don't care what her religious beliefs are, the issue is compliance with the law of the land and if she can't comply perhaps Afghanistan is the just the place she needs to be introduced to.

Samudra
01 Nov 04,, 06:27
One thing to worry about is ..
"Exactly how much of the world muslim population has this mindset and are happy with it ? "

Plus may be you should also consider their higher breeding rates.

mostlymad
03 Nov 04,, 20:15
Oh, BTW, I was also wondering if you could give me a little low down on the Native American religion. Like whats it called?, is it polytheistic ?, etc.....

Nisaar, I'm going to start a new thread in World Affairs Board Pub called something like "Everything you wanted to know about my religion (but were afraid to ask)" Fonnicker was right - this is very interesting but is taking over this thread. I hope you and the others continue to post on this subject. I have some more questions! :)

Nisaar
10 Nov 04,, 09:14
Nisaar, I'm going to start a new thread in World Affairs Board Pub called something like "Everything you wanted to know about my religion (but were afraid to ask)" Fonnicker was right - this is very interesting but is taking over this thread. I hope you and the others continue to post on this subject. I have some more questions! :)

Okay, I'll see you there

Nisaar
10 Nov 04,, 09:23
Kipruss

No cop outs - in this world you musty comply with the law of the land -- God will sort out his own. The woman in question, well, we don't care what her religious beliefs are, the issue is compliance with the law of the land and if she can't comply perhaps Afghanistan is the just the place she needs to be introduced to.

Like I was saying earlier, the women in the middle East accept that they are "Inferior to men" (so to say).

I read in my phsycollogy book the other day about something called, 'Stockholm syndrome'. The syndrome states that if you are forced to do something long enough, when you are no longer forced to do it, you still continue to do it even if it is something injurious to you or of no benefit, and the mind starts to enjoy doing it even if it hated it previously.

You think it was something like that?
Was this women also covering her face?, or only her hair.
The best way to oppress someone(in my opinion) is to cover their face.

mostlymad
10 Nov 04,, 13:58
The syndrome states that if you are forced to do something long enough, when you are no longer forced to do it, you still continue to do it even if it is something injurious to you or of no benefit, and the mind starts to enjoy doing it even if it hated it previously.

Nisaar, does the book actually say "enjoy?" I know many suppressed people when no longer forced to do a certain thing, as you mentioned, continue to do it, but I've always felt that it was more of them feeling it was their role, they deserved no better (as with abused women). Abused women, contrary to what some people say, do not enjoy what they endure. "Why don't they leave, then?" people ask. Because they have been taught to believe they deserve no better. They have so little self esteem because of what they endured.

That's why I was wondering about the word "enjoy."

Kipruss
11 Nov 04,, 05:33
Like I was saying earlier, the women in the middle East accept that they are "Inferior to men" (so to say).

I read in my phsycollogy book the other day about something called, 'Stockholm syndrome'. The syndrome states that if you are forced to do something long enough, when you are no longer forced to do it, you still continue to do it even if it is something injurious to you or of no benefit, and the mind starts to enjoy doing it even if it hated it previously.

You think it was something like that?
Was this women also covering her face?, or only her hair.
The best way to oppress someone(in my opinion) is to cover their face.
Hi Nissar, the issue was should she have to uncover her face to give evidence.

I don't think the court would have minded her hair being covered so long as the jury could see her as she was answering questions. It was a defence motion, so i'm not sure where our law as such stands on the issue.

tarek
12 Nov 04,, 19:00
That's a interesting take - "Stockholm Syndrome" as explanation.

Though I wonder why we have to go looking for explanations afar and deny the explanations near at hand. Seems to me that when we engage in such a effort, it serves to obscure, to dissipate our attention from where it belongs.


Why is Hijab making the impression on significant numbers of Muslims that it seems to be making??? Is the entire society suffering from the Stockholm syndrome?

What if we were to make an alternate suggestion - to the effect that Hijab represents several things all at once - a political symbol, a particular expression of a particular religiosity, a expression of the power of peer pressure, a expression of community and isolation - that the component of whatever this Islam turns out to be is intensely secular in it's foundation and orientation, that it is bereft of the "acid" of faith as it is understood to operate in traditional Abrahamic religions.

Lucien LaCroix
28 Nov 04,, 19:44
Has it ever occured to these fools that the real solution to any concerns about fostering sexual promiscuity through a manner of dress would be to demand a little self control and discipline from Muslim men--instead of demanding the female half of the population subsidize such immaturity by forcing them to become second-class citizens?

tarek
28 Nov 04,, 22:52
Self control?? Who dat is!

Implies that one, a person, a self, is in control, has a code of ethical behavior -- dangerous stuff.

Anyway, what u got against kicking women around? Wasn't it a woman who "sided" with satan and introduced noble (if horny) man to the fruit of knowledge? And aren't they dirty and the powerful allure they exercise over noble (if weak) men?

Hijab is a symbol of freedom, freedom from reason, freedom from responsibility -- kinda like "work makes you free".

Nisaar
30 Nov 04,, 15:08
Hi Nissar, the issue was should she have to uncover her face to give evidence.

I don't think the court would have minded her hair being covered so long as the jury could see her as she was answering questions. It was a defence motion, so i'm not sure where our law as such stands on the issue.


I think that is a totally fair request to make, I mean jeez, anyone could be under there........


Oh, BTW, Mostlymad, my lecturer even tells me that the subjects enjoy and even miss the torture..... or what it was that affected them.

Ray
30 Nov 04,, 15:21
Hijab is a symbol of freedom, freedom from reason, freedom from responsibility -- kinda like "work makes you free".

:)

mostlymad
30 Nov 04,, 15:27
Oh, BTW, Mostlymad, my lecturer even tells me that the subjects enjoy and even miss the torture..... or what it was that affected them.

that's tragic, Nisaar. For abused women, the ones I was mentioning, they may "miss" it in the sense that a battered child may miss beatings or sexual abuse if that was the only attention they received. Life feels uncertain without it. It isn't so much that they liked being hurt, but once that is gone, they face "what now? What do I do? Who is there to define me, even if it's to tell me I am bad?"

I am not arguing with your lecturer, but in these cases I like to see it taken further so that we all remember the victim is the victim, not in control, in a very bad situation, and even if they appear to like it or invite it, it is still very detrimental to them, and when such conditioning as comes from abuse occurs, can we really say that it is the person's free choice, even if they seem to miss it?

(nice to see you here, btw!)

mostlymad
30 Nov 04,, 15:29
-- kinda like "work makes you free".

what? It doesn't??!!!??

(oh, I am so out of here.....)

PaulG
30 Nov 04,, 15:59
What about the idea that even though a western raised muslim, or a middle eastern one with more of a modern individual style upbringing, may identify with the hijab as an identity marker. A bit of nationalistic rebellion against a society that rejects the hijab as a backward oddity, sugesting the wearer as one too.

Imagine yourself in a society that thinks you are backward and odd. Seems to me humans in this situation will do one of two things. reject the oddity and try to blend in with the dominant culture, or as an act of defiance and pride move even more closer to the backward odditieness. People are never more defensive of their culture as when it is being attacked.

tarek
30 Nov 04,, 23:00
Paul

An interesting take - Are we to understand then that Hijab does not reflect a religiosity or religious obligation, an article of faith - but a cultural enterprise in which the symbolism of rejection, exclusion and isolation is raised to such a level as to blur the distinction between political, cultural and religious and healthy from unhealthy?

tw-acs
02 Feb 05,, 20:39
OH my I have been gone for too long. If these claims are true then it would explain a lot of things like why I am so horny all the time.

Confusing to me is if these claims are true and it is necessary to cover the female form so much, how has the human society that does not employ these standards of decency continue to develop and in perspective to islamic dominated countries flourished? Also why have these countries with said standards of decency not grown into superpowers?

brokensickle
17 Jun 07,, 21:23
Some excerpts from the following article: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/18656.htm

A circular from the Ministry of Islamic Guidance and Culture in Tehran asks TV editors to make sure that women's games are not televised live: "Images of women engaged in contests [sic] must be carefully vetted," says the letter, leaked in Tehran. "Editors must take care to prevent viewers from being confronted [sic] with uncovered parts of the female anatomy in contests." . . .

Fear of Muslim viewers seeing bare female legs and arms on television is also shared by theologians in several Arab states. Sheik Yussuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian theologian based in Qatar, claims that female sport is exploited as a means of undermining "divine morality."

Ayatollah Emami Kashani, one of Iran's ruling mullahs, goes further. In a recent sermon, he claimed that allowing women to compete in the Olympics was a "sign of voyeurism" on the part of the male organizers.

"The question how much of a woman's body could be seen in public is one of the two or three most important issues that have dominated theological debate in Islam for decades," says Mohsen Sahabi, a Muslim historian. "More time and energy is devoted to this issue than to economic development or scientific research. "

The Khomeinist version of the hijab, invented in the 1970s and now popular in many countries, including the United States, covers a woman's entire body but allows her face and hands to be exposed. Hijab theoreticians agree on one claim: a woman's hair emanates dangerous rays that could drive men wild with sexual lust and thus undermine social peace.

But the problem of women athletes goes deeper. Some theologians claim that any form of sporting activity by women produces "sinful consequences." In 2000, for example, the Khomeinist authorities in Tehran announced a ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles. The rationale? Riding bicycles or motorcycles would activate a woman's thighs and legs, thus arousing "uncontrollable lustful drives" in her. And men watching women on their bikes in the streets could be "led towards dangerous urges."

The problems don't end there. According to some theologians, a woman should not be allowed to venture out of her home without a "raqib" or male guardian. But that guardian must be either her husband or her father, brother, grandfather, uncle or son.

Even if a woman is accompanied by such a "raqib" at a sporting event, the problem isn't solved. One woman's "raqib" will be a stranger to the other women playing, say, a game of volleyball. Thus any sport involving more than one woman produces complex chaperonage problems.

Last year, the Tehran Municipality presented a plan to provide sports facilities for women. . . . A model stadium was set up with 12-foot-high walls to make sure that no one could see the women from the outside. The stadium was to operate with an all-female staff, including coaches and administrators. The plan was scrapped last February, when critics claimed that the proposed stadium was located close enough to an airport that women in the stadium might be seen by men flying above them in jetliners and helicopters. . . .

The municipality still hopes to find another plot of land to build an all-female facility. "Women account for a majority of the population in this city," says Esfandiar Mashaie, Tehran deputy mayor for social affairs. "We cannot ask them to pay municipal taxes but be denied the same facilities as men simply because we fear that some men may go wild by seeing women doing sport."

At times, fear of women doing sports causes major headaches for Islamic governments. The Islamic Republic in Iran, for example, has agreed to host the Muslim Women's International badminton games next year. Although all the participating athletes have agreed to wear uniforms that cover them from head to toe, the organizers are still worried that men might sneak in to have a look at what is going on. To solve the problem, the authorities have decided to hold the games in a remote mountain resort. The only road leading to the resort will be sealed by an all-female unit of the paramilitary Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The games will be organized and supervised by exclusively female staff and recorded by an all-female TV crew.

"The place would look like a lepers' colony," says Soheila Karimi, a women-rights campaigner. "These people live on another planet and in a different epoch."

************************************************** ***********
************************************************** ***********

LOL, I wonder why the hell the stupid scientists are busy studying all sorts of things using x rays when they could investigate the Islamic "sex rays from female hair" Theory instead.



All the blame seems to fall on the women here:rolleyes: How about the lack of control and weakness of the men?...Islam treats the women as an evil temptress but is weak in explaining the responsibility of the man to control his desire. Islam's answer is cover the women and blame her if a man should defile her.

Jesus forgave the prostitute and ask the perfect man to step foreword who would accuse her. None came foreword but all left who were ready to stone her.


IVAN

smalltexan
17 Jun 07,, 21:42
What about the idea that even though a western raised muslim, or a middle eastern one with more of a modern individual style upbringing, may identify with the hijab as an identity marker. A bit of nationalistic rebellion against a society that rejects the hijab as a backward oddity, sugesting the wearer as one too.

Imagine yourself in a society that thinks you are backward and odd. Seems to me humans in this situation will do one of two things. reject the oddity and try to blend in with the dominant culture, or as an act of defiance and pride move even more closer to the backward odditieness. People are never more defensive of their culture as when it is being attacked.

Or, look at it from the woman's perspective. Many women feel men are backward and odd. Yet, we use that knowledge to our advantage, not out of defiance, but as exploitative. :) The results can be rewarding.:)

TopHatter
17 Jun 07,, 23:46
Could somebody please tell these backward fools that it's time to come out of the 8th Century? :rolleyes: